Florida 'Effectively Banned AP Psychology' With Rules Against Teaching About Gender, Sexual Orientation
Plus: The gender gap in high school political identification is overstated, Why We Can't Have Nice Things explains the baby formula shortage, and more...

*UPDATE: "Both the Florida Department of Education and the College Board released statements on Friday suggesting that the course could continue to be taught in Florida, including the section on gender and sexual orientation, though many questions remained," notes The New York Times.
Florida education commissioner Manny Diaz Jr. wrote in a Friday letter to school district superintendents that A.P. Psychology "can be taught in its entirety in a manner that is age and developmentally appropriate" and that "the course remains listed in our course catalog."
The College Board issued the following statement in response: "We hope now that Florida teachers will be able to teach the full course, including content on gender and sexual orientation, without fear of punishment in the upcoming school year."
"Gender and sexual orientation have been part of AP Psychology since the course launched." Florida schools can no longer offer Advanced Placement (A.P.) Psychology classes due to the state's prohibition on teaching concepts related to gender identity or sexual orientation.
Per guidelines set forth by the College Board, which creates standards for A.P. courses, A.P. Psychology students must be able to "describe how sex and gender influence socialization and other aspects of development."
"This element of the framework is not new: gender and sexual orientation have been part of AP Psychology since the course launched 30 years ago," notes the College Board.
But under Florida House Bill 1557—which opponents dubbed the "Don't Say Gay" scheme—Florida schools are largely banned from teaching students about gender identity and sexual orientation. The law, passed in 2022, explicitly banned such instruction for students in kindergarten through third grade. Additionally, it says that such instruction should be banned in any grade where it "is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students."
Lawmakers left it open to the Florida Board of Education to decide what the latter part meant—and the Board decided earlier this year that it meant most discussion of gender or sexual orientation was off limits for students up through grade 12, too. "The topics of gender identity and sexual orientation have no place in the classroom," said Education Department spokeswoman Alex Lanfranconi in April. "Today's state board action reaffirms Florida's commitment to uphold parental rights and keep indoctrination out of our schools."
The only exceptions are for situations when it's required by state educational standards or is "part of a reproductive health course or health lesson for which a student's parent has the option to have his or her student not attend." This would seem to preclude teaching A.P. Psychology students about how sex and gender influence socialization and development, since to do so would be to discuss gender identity and other concepts Florida has deemed dangerous.
"The Florida Department of Education has effectively banned AP Psychology in the state by instructing Florida superintendents that teaching foundational content on sexual orientation and gender identity is illegal under state law," states the College Board. "Any AP Psychology course taught in Florida will violate either Florida law or college requirements."
"Florida officials told school superintendents Thursday that they may offer the class but only if material concerning sexual orientation and gender identity is removed," notes The Washington Post. "He said districts were encouraged to teach a modified version of the class."
But A.P. Psychology courses that exclude such lessons don't cut it, the College Board has said. "We advise Florida districts not to offer AP Psychology until Florida reverses their decision and allows parents and students to choose to take the full course."
That's because the point of A.P. courses—which allow high school students who take them and score high enough on a test afterward to get college credit—is to denote a common body of knowledge on par with what would be learned in an introductory college course.
The American Psychological Association (APA) applauded the College Board's decision.
"Understanding human sexuality is fundamental to psychology, and an advanced placement course that excludes the decades of science studying sexual orientation and gender identity would deprive students of knowledge they will need to succeed in their studies, in high school and beyond," said APA CEO Arthur C. Evans Jr. "We applaud the College Board for standing up to the state of Florida and its unconscionable demand to censor an educational curriculum and test that were designed by college faculty and experienced AP teachers who ensure that the course and exam reflect the state of the science and college-level expectations."
According to the College Board, more than 28,000 Florida students took A.P. Psychology last academic year.
Proponents of Florida's ban on instruction about gender and sexual orientation often portray it as a law that lets parents have more control over their children's education. But by outright forbidding such instruction—even for older students—it actually takes choices away from parents and students. A.P. Psychology is not a required course for high school students, but it should be one that they have the option to take.
FREE MINDS
No, most high school boys aren't conservative. A survey making the rounds (yes, we linked it in Roundup earlier this week) purportedly shows a crazy gender gap in political identification among teenagers. And indeed, "high school boys are now twice as likely to identify as conservative than liberal" while high school girls "are almost three times as likely to identify as liberal than conservative," notes Reason's Emma Camp. However, there's a big caveat: Majorities of both boys and girls identified as neither liberal nor conservative:
The source of concern is concentrated among the paltry 23 percent of boys who identified as conservative and 30 percent of girls who identified as liberal—leaving just 13 percent of boys identifying as liberal, and 12 percent of girls as conservative. But 64 percent of boys and 58 percent of girls didn't identify as conservative or liberal—instead, they identified as "moderate," "none of the above," or "I don't know."
Despite a lot of dramatic predictions about what this wave of conservative boys means or how the gender gap will play out as kids get older, most of them either don't know if they're conservative or liberal or don't accept this left-right dichotomy as adequately capturing their political identity.
FREE MARKETS
The first episode of Reason's new podcast, Why We Can't Have Nice Things, is here! In episode No. 1, host Eric Boehm explores how a combination of absurdly high federal tariffs and excessive Food and Drug Administration regulations created the great baby formula shortage of 2022:
Though it was a crisis kicked off by unexpected supply chain issues and contamination problems at a major production facility in Michigan, the roots of the shortage ran straight through Washington, D.C., where poor government policy left American infants hungry and their parents scrambling.
With domestic supply chains snarled, it would have made sense for American grocery stores to turn to foreign producers for replacement supplies of baby formula. Unfortunately, there are "absurdly high" tariffs on imported formula, explains Gabriella Beaumont-Smith, a trade policy analyst at the Cato Institute.
"There are these distribution channels that are basically not established" because the tariffs make it too costly, she says. "And we're talking about baby formula. This is a necessity and we shouldn't be taxing it that high or at all."
It took last year's crisis for Congress to consider lifting those tariffs—and only on a temporary basis. The dairy lobby and other special interests like the isolated, and fragile, American market for baby formula just the way it is.
QUICK HITS
Here's our story.
As has been reported, a dead person was found Wednesday stuck to the buoys Texas officials installed at the Mexican border, per Mexican Foreign Affairs Secretary Alicia Bárcena
The DOJ is suing Texas to have the buoys removed. https://t.co/6PvHDfYjQm
— Aarón Torres (@AaronTorres_) August 3, 2023
• Introducing Reason's new crossword puzzle. Created by professional puzzle solver Stella Zawistowski, it will be a weekly puzzle with a "pro-capitalism, pro–free market" voice, she says.
• Vox runs down various artificial intelligence regulations that Congress and the Biden administration are considering.
• A police officer who tased a man to death during a traffic stop got off with a misdemeanor charge (though he could lose his certification, which would bar him from working in law enforcement in Arkansas).
• California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein's daughter "has power of attorney over her mother's legal affairs," notes The New York Times. "Feinstein, 90 and in her sixth term in the Senate, has long been in frail health with increasing memory and cognition issues."
• "The $10,000 cap on the state and local tax deduction"—a.k.a. the SALT cap—"is bedeviling Congress. Again," reports The Wall Street Journal.
• Most of the problems being attributed to drug decriminalization in Oregon are actually "caused by the continuing impact of prohibition," notes Jacob Sullum.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1687169266754158592?t=R4NvnKtR7LK0rNaBh0OuWA&s=19
No *real* election looks like this.
Everyone knows it.
This is an algorithm:
[Link]
"No evidence!!!!"
Also enjoy some anomalies:
- A 150 year trend in declining voter particpation was reversed... for Joe Biden. And not just by a little, but by a lot.
This obviously senile politician with no talent for speaking and mediocre popularity would not only beat the Republican Party's rock star (Donald Trump) in votes, but also the Democrat Party's rock star (Barack Obama).
Curious since his rare campaign speeches and rare campaign appearances hardly attracted any significant number of individuals, let alone crowds, and since, on the strange advice of Nancy Pelosi, he hardly left his basement to campaign.
- In 132 years, no president has received more votes in his run for reelection and lost. Yet Donald Trump received 10 million more votes in 2020 than in 2016 -- and lost.
- Trump won 18 of the 19 counties both Democrats and Republicans regard as the "bellwether" counties that virtually always go with the outcome of presidential elections. Yet he lost.
- He won four bellwether states -- Florida, Ohio, Iowa and North Carolina. Yet he lost.
- Republicans held onto all the House seats they were defending and gained another 13 seats. Yet, Trump lost.
Some more anomalies;
- Unprecedented efforts were made in some states to (illegally) change election laws.
- Mostly Democratic states sent out tens of millions of ballots or applications for absentee ballots to people who never requested them.
- "Voting" began in some states six weeks before Election Day.
- People have submitted sworn affidavits at great personal cost and with possible perjury charges that they witnessed ballot tampering on election night.
But if you say "something is fishy here", you're called an insurrectionist and a conspiracy theorist spreading The Big Lie, and were deplatformed, doxxed and your bank closed your accounts. Which somehow totally isn't fishy either.
When I was working, I never wanted to be the one running the meeting, I wanted to be the one writing the minutes.
There was a reason for that.
One reason Stalin assumed the position of General Secretary
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning sixteen thousand US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome7.com
I am making twenty thousand rubles working from my dacha every day by signing papers seizing the property of kulaks.
Believable.
Doesn't that convert to fifty cents?
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,400 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,400 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link———————————>>> http://Www.OnlineCash1.Com
Certainly makes more sense than the OP.
Make money online from home extra cash more than $18000 to $21000. Start getting paid every month Thousands Dollars online. I have received $26000 in this month by just working online from home in my part time. every person easily do this job by.
just Open This Website.....> https://aprichs.blogspot.com
Smart!
Pretty much sums it up and I would add swing states stopping the voting and evicting press and Republicans with Trump way ahead only to reopen with Biden in the lead. Nothing about the 2020 election was normal. The circumstances and anomalies were unprecedented. For anyone, particularly libertarians, to pretend otherwise is absurd.
The Durham Report only reinforced the belief that these people would do this!
You're not allowed to have opinions that the government doesn't approve of.
Admonish yourself.
Another anomaly, signature and mail in ballot rejection rate were significantly lower than in previous elections.
For White Mike Cite
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-so-few-absentee-ballots-were-rejected-in-2020/
White Mike thinks Fivethirtyeight is a far right blog and is obviously pushing The Big Lie.
Finally, all the time I’ve put in training you guys is paying off.
What’s the point being made here? That the “right” amount of rejections was not achieved, therefore there was election fraud?
It's in the description - 'ballot rejection rate were significantly lower than in previous elections (multiple).'
It would be an anomaly, would it not?
Are you sure that it isn’t just that the pandemic happened on Donald Trump’s watch, which necessitated the expansion of mail in voting, and got lots of people who don’t usually vote to vote against Donald Trump? And that Donald Trump actually did send his supporters to intimidate Congress into not certifying the election that has people so riled up? I ask because if you accept all of that, the election results make total sense. Of course the last election wasn’t normal. A pandemic happened and we shut down the economy to slow down the spread. Doesn’t mean that any of those votes for Biden are not actual votes for Biden. As for the sworn affidavits, none of the court cases proved voter fraud. So I am just going to call those lies.
Huh? I thought none of the court cases were actually adjudicated, rather, rejected for lack of standing or something.
Haha! Only a dishonest person would pretend "not trying a case" is the same as "contentions of case disproved". Haha...hey, wait a minute...
Wrong, as usual. Yes, some cases were rejected for lack of standing, but not all. Some never went to trial because the "evidence" presented by the plaintiffs was too laughable to justify a trial. Then there were the cases where a judge was prepared to go to trial. One after another, plaintiffs dropped their cases like hot rocks. Most likely because their attorneys explained to them that lying on Twitter makes you an asshole, but lying under oath makes you a felon.
If you sit and think about The Official Narrative you just parroted for a minute, you'd realize just how retarded and nonsensical it is.
You could conceivably argue that mail in voting might bring in an extra one or two million voters, maybe three if you're pushing it. Not twenty-six million. That's insane.
And if you still think, in light of all the hard evidence to the contrary that Trump sent his supporters deliberately to intimidate congress, you're insane.
...and hypocritical when viewed in the light of the Trump inauguration riots and the Aug 2020 attack on the White House ginned up by the DNC.
Totally an insurrection on the scale of Pearl Harbor and 9/11.
They went in, unarmed* and without map, and also without leader...to..uh, gain access to the oft-referenced "Levers of Power and then oilà! The utraMaga terrorists rule the country.
*-they were equipped, in true terrorist fashion with an enraged Ashli Babbit, but the weapon was neutralized with a panicked shot from a DC Police force pig. Not only was he never charged with excessive force (or anything at all), but there were no "Republican Lives Matter" riots,
Trump may not have ever said "Go attack Congress!" but he didn't lift a finger to stop it either.
Well, other than offering the guard to fortify the capital - an offer which was rejected out of hand by the democrat leadership. The same leadership who also rejected the capital police's calls for additional resources.
Odd coincidence, that.
"pandemic"...a 99.8% higher survival rate is hardly a pandemic. Another way of saying this is if you lived in a village of 5K people, maybe 10 folks would die (most would be old or obese not young). This wasn't the bubonic plague.
As for "mail in" voting...illegal no, suseptible to activists going door to door and getting folks to vote..sure. Trump has no one to blame but himself...the GOP should have forced same day voting in person. Trump would have won by 20M votes..
Or maybe the GOP could have run a more competent campaign. Their operation was strictly amateur hour. Many of their most experienced and professional electioneers and poll workers were either disgusted with Trump or actively driven out by his supporters. When you put a second-rate little league team up against a major league team you shouldn't be surprised when they take a shellacking.
It could be argued that the "reign of terror" response to the pandemic that was carried out mostly by Dem officials at state/local levels is what "necessitated" such a vast increase in mail-in voting. With an assist from the outlets in the "mainstream" media which devolved during the trump years from reporting in a Dem friendly manner to uncritically repeating whatever the current set of talking points issued by the DNC central leadership might happen to be, they've spun the whole narrative around the damage from the response vs the damage from the virus as if the Governors, Mayors, and School boards who chose to shut down for a year or more based on the idea of "six weeks to flatten the curve" had literally no agency in their policy decisions and as such all of the harm done by their policy responses are actually attributable to "the virus" and the officials who actually destroyed jobs and businesses and crippled a generation of kids both emotionally and educationally are to be held blameless for the widespread detrimental consequences of the deliberate actions they took in the course of failing to actually protect any significant number of vulnerable people from dying (although in some cases, those deaths might have been postponed by some number of weeks or months).
"Are you sure that it isn’t just that the pandemic happened on Donald Trump’s watch, which necessitated the expansion of mail in voting,"
Who cares what it "necessitated", if it was done without the legislature changing election laws?
When I used to live in Michigan, pretty much every election some judge in Flint and/or Detroit would find that an auto accident, or bad weather, or whatever, "necessitated" extending the voting hours locally in massively Democratic precincts. Like clockwork.
Nobody bought it, we all understood it was just a form of election rigging, arranging for longer voting hours where Democrats were dominant.
A lot of the 2020 extra-legal changes were like that, only on steroids: Changes, often just in predominantly Democratic areas, that would increase turnout, instead of just following the election laws on the books.
All I see are a list of unsupported claims, many of which are so non-specific as to be unverifiable, that you believe to be evidence of something non-specific and vaguely alluded to. Not even a cursory attempt has been made to meet your burden of proof. The resident holocaust denier makes more effort to put forth his arguments.
An American election being rigged to produce a specific result would be the most important occurrence of our lives. One would think that an intelligent person such as yourself and all of the others would put forth the greatest possible amount of effort to convince others to believe as you do so that The People could return the government back to a Constitutional Democracy. The consequence of your failure cannot be understated and you have never engaged in a more important task.
However, there has been no such great effort. Not from you, not from anyone else, and not from Trump, who allegedly has unfathomable wealth at his disposal and who for a pittance could hire the best investigators and the most persuasive story tellers and yet has some how failed to put forth a singular, cohesive, specific, understandable, verifiable argument any more comprehensive than yours.
This tells us something about the veracity of his and your claims, and whether you even believe them.
Was this written for Kamala?
And every time someone has made a specific, falsifiable claim it turned out to be either unsupported by the evidence or provably false. The GOP sold their collective soul to a known liar, and now all they have is lies.
Really?
I claimed that the signature verification would invalidate all of the disputed state elections. So did many others, including election experts.
you know what never happened? An audit of all the signatures on the mail in ballots. The samples in Arizona proved that a full audit would overturn the election. Yet... it never happened. Georgia law required the signature audit. It never happened.
And those were all issues talked about right here in the HnR comments at the time... not some post-hoc talking points shoveled out by some think-tank.
But sure, repeat the talking points put out by the winning propaganda team. Because that's a good source.
"A 150 year trend in declining voter particpation was reversed… for Joe Biden. And not just by a little, but by a lot."
No, turnout surged due to the President with the lowest approval ratings ever running for re-election. When you are the only President in history to never reach 50% approval, there are a lot of voters who usually don't vote that think, "Yeah, this shithead's gotta go".
"In 132 years, no president has received more votes in his run for reelection and lost."
When there is record turnout (again, due to a shitty president in office), everyone's totals will be higher. It's called math. Perhaps if Trump had done a better job, he wouldn't have lost.
"“bellwether” counties"
If you want a detailed explanation as to why this isn't surprising, here you go: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-did-all-the-bellwether-counties-go/
Short version: it started in 2016, they were all demographically advantageous to Trump and differed substantially from the US population in racial diversity (or lack thereof), education level, and population density. You obviously got your "18 out of 19 bellwether counties" from here, but neglected to actually read the article. Unsurprising.
"He won four bellwether states — Florida, Ohio, Iowa and North Carolina. Yet he lost."
Even if there were only four bellwether states, your point would be irrelevant. But there were 13. Biden won 8, Trump won 5. Again, if you want to actually learn:
http://www.ballotpedia .org/Presidential_battleground_states,_2020
"Republicans held onto all the House seats they were defending and gained another 13 seats."
Yet again, you're wrong. 17 seats flipped in 2020 (18 if you count Justin Amash). 14 flipped from D to R (plus one from L to R) and 3 flipped from R to D. That resulted in a net gain of 11 (12 if you include Amash) seats. It's not an outlier compared to past elections and has nothing to do with the Presidential election no matter how badly you want it to.
"Unprecedented efforts were made in some states to (illegally) change election laws."
Somewhere north of 90% of the "illegal election changes" cases got tossed out. A handful were successful, but zero involved someone who wasn't a registered voter casting a vote.
There was no fraud, nor was any vote counted for either candidate (because it wasn't just Dems that used those rules) that wasn't what the voter intended.
When your complaint is "legal voters followed the rules and cast their votes legally, but weeks after the election was over a few of the rules were found to have been changed illegally so there was fraud", you are grasping at straws. You don't even know what the vote totals or breakdowns were, you just assume (like an idiot) that it was a lot and 100% for Biden.
"Mostly Democratic states sent out tens of millions of ballots or applications for absentee ballots to people who never requested them."
And? Why does that matter? Fraud wasn't any more prevalent than past elections, so that's a red herring.
"“Voting” began in some states six weeks before Election Day."
So what? Everybody votes once, so why does it matter if they voted on Election Day or before it?
"People have submitted sworn affidavits at great personal cost and with possible perjury charges that they witnessed ballot tampering on election night."
Yes and, when investigated, none of them turned out to be election fraud. Saying "I saw someone pull a suitcase full of votes out from under a table" isn't proof of election fraud when it is easily shown to be not-fraud by election officials.
People who desperately want to believe that their guy didn't lose will imagine endless conspiracies from the most innocuous and innocent event. People who know what they are talking about and those who have investigated these allegations know it is a particularly corrosive version of sour grapes.
"But if you say “something is fishy here”, you’re called an insurrectionist and a conspiracy theorist spreading The Big Lie"
Nope. If you and your friends smashed their way into the Capitol in an attempt to stop the certification of a free and fair election, you are an insurrectionist.
If you say "something is fishy here" you are willfully and intentionally refusing to accept reality. That absolutely makes you a conspiracy theorist spreading the Big Lie.
This has all been explained to you dozens of times, but you continue to push the democrat Big Lie.
Yeah, counting on evidence and facts is so dishonest. It's much more reasonable to build elaborate conspiracy theories that ignore all evidence and investigations, like a significant percentage of Republicans do.
I was no reversed by Joe Biden. It was reversed by Donald Trump. I did not want to vote Biden, and I don't want to vote for him again. But I wil;l vote for him in a heartbeat if Trump is on the ticket again. That's for sure. And just like last time, I will round up as many people who have written off politics as possible and do whatever I can to make sure that whoever is elected cares about America and can find it on a globe.
If Trump gets the nomination (and it sure looks like he will), the 2024 election is going to go down in history as the greatest own-goal in political history. Liz Cheney would absolutely mop the floor with Biden. Jeff Flake could walk in to the White House unimpeded if he was selected. There might be some "nearly as cynical as Trump" people like JD Vance or Ted Cruz who couldn't do it, but there is no better way to ensure people like me will all go to the polls to stop the incessant Trumpist bullshit than by putting him in the general.
Oh yeah: 28% of Republicans would vote for him even if he were a convicted felon in prison too. Jesus Christ. The dumb is profound.
Liberals and their useful idiots like sarc will never admit that ballot dumps in the high 90s for Joe Biden are a statistical anomoly and make zero sense. Why they rely on the false narratives that no gop voted by mail due to trump. Ignore that the mail in ballots were 60-40 in final counts. Those 10k batches of Biden getting 9500 are totes legit. All the big ballot dumps to Biden occurred after the key areas knew the outcome of election day voting. States like Pennsylvania even went as far as to illegally destroy ballot envelopes so no audits could occur.
Show the math!
/ sarc
More like at this point they move goalposts away from inability to audit towards "court cases!"
Of course, the court cases went like Wisconsin, which demonstrated that the election board was wrong (illegal) every which way, but since the *people* who voted (illegally) didn't necessarily know they were voting illegally because "pandemic", so "we'll let it slide", allowing the election results to stand. And then weeks later, overturning themselves and raking the election board over the coals and a scathing rebuttal of the dissenting side. Of course, too late.
Georgia's illegal drop boxes, etc., all counted during the election, because "pandemic" and somehow when the state actually tried to get elections back to regular order, suddenly it's "Jim Crow Eagle 2.0" or somesuch. But there's no question that election activities were conducted in violation of the laws even before they were updated (to prevent the sort of abuses seen).
Pennsylvania courts continued to change the rules, and each such judicial rule change (ignoring the clear wording of state laws) allowed more and more questionable ballots to be counted.
So you're literally arguing that legal voters who voted in a legal manner for the candidate they preferred should be disenfranchised because weeks after the election ended the rules were deemed to have been changed erroneously.
When a legal voter casts a legal vote in the manner that is legal at the time they cast it, that vote should always been counted. Period. Anything else is disenfranchisement.
But the votes were not cast in a legal manner. That’s the point.
They were cast illegally, based on illegal rules illegally promulgated by Sec. State & Board of Election…
The voters may have THOUGHT they were casting legal ballots, but they were not.
And state law is clear that ballots not cast in accordance with all laws MUST not be counted.
"But the votes were not cast in a legal manner. That’s the point."
Yes they were, on the day they were cast. Expecting voters to know the future or be disenfranchised is insane.
It is literally impossible to know the future. Following the rules at the time you are voting makes it a legal vote, legally cast.
The possibility that maybe, in the future, the rules will be different isn't a valid reason to disenfranchise anyone.
"And state law is clear that ballots not cast in accordance with all laws MUST not be counted."
Those votes were cast in accordance with all laws. It's impossible to know future laws. The only ones that matter are the laws AT THE TIME.
Again, expecting people to follow laws from the future is insane.
I was intrigued by the numbers in Georgia runoffs...with control of the Senate in the balance--and the fact that total power (President, House, and Senate) could be in Democrat hands for at least 2 years (never a good thing). It was perhaps the most closely watched and highly promoted race not involving Presidents.
Jon Ossoff (D)
2,211,603 50.2%
David Perdue (R)
2,194,578 49.8%
(a total of 4406181 votes, and a margin of 17k votes)
Raphael Warnock(D)
2,230,231 50.61%
Kelly Loeffler*(R)
2,176,048 49.39%
(a total of 4406279 votes, and a margin of 54k votes)
You'd think that someone voting for Ossoff would also have voted for Warnock and vice-versa, and similarly that a Perdue voter was also a Loeffler voter and vice-versa.
But 20k fewer people voted for Ossoff than Warnock. There is a similar 20k vote differential in Perdue over Loeffler, so the implication seems to be that 20k people voted for Perdue AND Warnock, which I find virtually unfathomable.
Meanwhile, there was another state-wide race, for PSC
McDonald, Lauren Bubba i (R)
2,214,057 50.78%
Blackman, Daniel (D)
2,145,636 49.22%
(a total of 4359693 votes)
So it seems that about 46.5k people voted for Senators but didn't vote for a PSC. That is in itself not unusual, as it is not rare for people to only vote on the "important" seats and skip down-ballot votes.
The AMAZING thing to me is that despite 46.5k FEWER votes total, that 20k MORE people voted for a Republican for the PSC seat than voted for Senator Perdue and 38k MORE than Senator Loeffler. Heck even 3k MORE people voted for the Republican PSC candidate than voted for Jon Ossoff.
But pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Nothing to see here! Absolutely no shenanigans could possibly have occurred.
"You’d think that someone voting for Ossoff would also have voted for Warnock and vice-versa, and similarly that a Perdue voter was also a Loeffler voter and vice-versa."
Why? The idea that 20k voters out of 4.4 million (.4%) might not be blindly partisan confuses you?
"The AMAZING thing to me"
Proof positive that you are easily amazed. There are plenty of people who have specific issues that would make them unwilling to vote for a candidate. You're using a 1% difference in vote totals (and an idiotic assumption that every voter is a pure partisan) to build a vote fraud conspiracy theory. You're insane.
I want it to be true, ergo, it must be true.
2024 could very well turn out to be known as the Red Mop. With Trump on the ballot Republicans are going to be 100% responsible for committing suicide. At this point it's probably for the best. America needs two serious political parties- ones that both accept The Theory of Reality.
That vote pattern all makes sense if you accept the story of the red mirage. Donald Trump encouraged his supporters to vote in person. So they voted in person. But Joe Biden's supporters were encouraged to vote by mail. But some states have laws saying to not start counting the mail in votes until either election day or the day before election day. So Joe Biden's votes com in after Donald Trump's votes. So it looks like Donald was winning, when really he was losing. But you can't tell until after the fact.
The mail in vote average was 60-40. The returns showed really odd jumps only for Biden despite a 95-5 batch of a couple thousand being well outside of statistical probability. These batches tended to happen only once the in person vote counting totals were known.
Really. 95%-to-5% isn't even going to happen with registered and poll Biden supporters due to changing minds/checked wrong box/temporary sanity.
Has there ever been a batch of votes that went 95-5 for one candidate? This is not only tom-foolery of the hanky-pankiest type, it may rise to the level of rank shenanigans
A twenty-six million vote increase doesn't happen just because people are too lazy to stop by the local school gymnasium but not too lazy to go mail something.
No, it happens when you have a historically unpopular president who was underwater with swing groups.
Trump motivated more voters than anyone in history. Unfortunately for him, he motivated more people who wanted him to lose than people who wanted him to win.
Karma's a bitch.
Trump only won in '16 because the Dems insisted on nominating Hillary Clinton. She ran a weak campaign with major tactical blunders in the late game. The Dem base was less than wildly enthusiastic about her while GOP voters almost universally despised her.
After four years of Trump's lies, whining and general feckless incompetence, the Dems could have nominated a potted plant and won. Biden might not have thrilled the Dem base, but he didn't alienate them either. So, not much of a surprise they turned out in droves to vote against the guy they hated.
" the Dems could have nominated a potted plant and won. "
Which is exactly what they did.
Without the pandemic Trump wins in a walk. The economy was spectacular, only damaged by the lockdowns and other moronic government responses.
The economy was slightly weaker than under Obama and he was the only President to never reach 50% approval. He would have lost no matter what the environment. Lots of negatives and no positives = loser.
Utter bullshit. You’re a shill. Case closed.
Both of those facts are true. The prediction of a Trump loss is, obvioisly, my opinion. But none of it is bullshit.
There's no sinister mystery here. The law required in-person votes to be counted before mail-in votes. Trump spent months lying about mail-in voting being some evil scheme to "steal" votes and urging his supporters not to do it. (Despite doing it himself.) Big surprise, lots of cultists believed him and mail-in votes skewed massively Dem. If you put off counting the most likely Dem voters until last, a late Dem surge is entirely predictable.
The truth was that in most states the mail in voting mechanisms slapped together were illegal. They were conducted in complete violation of state law, without legislative approval. Courts--panicked by COVID--were reluctant to punish voters or go against any pandemic-panic.
Every ballot dropped into a "drop-box" in Georgia was an illegal ballot.
Yes, because the only way a legal vote can be cast by a legal voter is in-person. What a joke.
Never said any such thing. I said that the drop boxes provisioned by Georgia were done in violation of state election laws in pace at the time, and so ballots placed in them might as well have been "found on the street" and as such cannot be counted legally.
And yet, they weren't against the law at the time and there is a vast difference between legal voters casting legal votes on a legal manner and "might as well have been “found on the street”".
You have such a twisted view of what justifies disenfranchising legal voters. And since the laws passed by the Republican legislature, signed by the Republican givernor, and judged to be valid by the Republican in charge of the election all day they were legally cast, your personal opinion has no legal validity. Shocking.
It seems like a bigger issue that they are unable to teach psychology without talking about homosexuality and transgenderism.
"The $10,000 cap on the state and local tax deduction"—a.k.a. the SALT cap—"is bedeviling Congress. Again," reports The Wall Street Journal.
Ahhh, poor babies. They might actually have to lower taxes in certain blue states. Breaks my liddle heart.
They want actions without consequences.
That cap came with a rather significant increase in the standard deduction. The general rule is that middle and lower class people pay a bit less. The only people who are hit by it are the ones itemizing with expensive houses and high income in high tax states.
Democrats seem all about wealth taxes, but one tax change that happens to hit San Francisco progressives is horrible to these people. They have to fight for the little guys -- you know, the ones with a 2 million dollar home and 350K household incomes. Go figure.
Not necessarily. I don’t have a mortgage and I’m retired with a modest income from dividends and social security, but my itemized deductions are higher than the standard deduction.
But is your tax bill higher? Because, if you're deducting more than $10K in SALT your state and local taxes are well above most people's.
Not in economically vibrant areas. When land and houses cost a lot, you hit $10,000 pretty quickly.
If you're paying over $10k in property taxes, your property taxes are well above most people's.
Not in high-density, economically successful states. $750,000 is a middle class home in the suburbs of most major cities.
NYC has sky high property values and isn’t ‘economically successful’. Just like most democrat cities.
Yes, a city whose GDP dwarfs most countries is an economic failure. Obviously.
"The only people who are hit by it are the ones itemizing with expensive houses and high income in high tax states"
You talk like it's just a bunch of rich people living in mansions. Sure, a $750,000 house is a palace if you live in Alabama. But in Pennsylvania it's a modest single-family home. When you live in an economically vibrant area where people want to live, land is expensive. That's why this hits a lot more blue states than red states. Blue states are the economic engine of America, but the downside is it makes things cost a lot more.
Never mind that medical expenses are often the reason working class people have to itemize.
The only thing that sucks more than burning through your life savings trying to stay alive is knowing the reason you can't claim it on your taxes is because a born-on-third-base trust fund baby wanted to give his rich buddies a huge tax break and needed a trick to make it seem like it wasn't going to blow a massive hole in the deficit.
Kudos to Republicans for figuring out how to stick it to their political opponents while growing the deficit (as usual) with another failed supply-side boondoggle. Politically it was brilliant. It sucks for most American citizens and added over $2 trillion to the deficit, but at this point is that a surprise from Trump?
The tax change related to SALT doesn't impact itemized deductions except as it relates to state and local income taxes. Medical deductions, mortgage interest, etc., are not impacted.
Do you have any other expertise to offer here?
You are correct. Medical isn't included in SALT. But anything that limits a deduction reduces the amount a taxpayer can claim.
The value of a house directly impacts the tax deduction, since in addition to having the SALT top out at $10k (leaving almost $16k to reach itemization), it also capped the mortgage value for deductions at $750,000 (hence my reference to that amount), which lowers the mortgage deduction.
In any economically vibrant area, salaries are higher so income taxes are higher. Land is more expensive so house values are higher. The changes were made intentionally to hurt those areas, which are predominantly "blue" states.
You can't pretend that if you strip away a large portion of one of the biggest itemized deductions that it doesn't increase taxes in prosperous states. And you can't pretend it wasn't targeted at the areas that comprise most of the people and economic activity in America.
Red states are already takers, sucking up more in public services than they pay. It's the blue states that foot the bill. Now you want to kick the gift horse in the mouth?
Why are most conservative states such ungrateful, net-loss, underperforming, undereducated wastelands? If they actually did things better than blue states (like conservatives keep claiming), you'd think they wouldn't constantly get their asses handed to them by blue states in income, jobs, education, living standards, cultural institutions, or economic activity. Almost the only thing they have more of is per-capita crime (specifically violent crime and property crimes) and overdoses.
Weak comment. No substance, just throwing invective.
The biggest itemized deduction is responsible for shifting government income from the federal to the state/city level. A good goal, but not if it's utilized by blue cities and states to unfairly burden other states by freeloading, which is exactly what the SALT deduction does.
And my analysis was correct. A doctor living in West Virginia is not necessarily less valuable, skillful, or productive than one living in San Francisco. Yet by your flawed analysis (they earn more, they pay more in taxes), you conclude that the San Francisco doctor is better.
"Weak comment. No substance, just throwing invective"
Everything except the last paragraph was substance. The last paragraph was may opinion, pointing out that red states are largely inferior to blue states by educational and economic measures. My opinion is it's due to their inferior policies.
"not if it’s utilized by blue cities and states to unfairly burden other states by freeloading, which is exactly what the SALT deduction does."
Red startes are the freeloaders. Most red states are net-negative states, most blue states are net-positive states.
"A doctor living in West Virginia is not necessarily less valuable, skillful, or productive than one living in San Francisco."
Agreed. I never said otherwise. And they have a good amount more stress due to the rampant drug use in rural America. However, they get paid a lot less because (as I pointed out) economically vibrant areas are more expensive to live in due to the high demand for everything, necessitating higher salaries.
"Yet by your flawed analysis (they earn more, they pay more in taxes), you conclude that the San Francisco doctor is better."
No, I assume the doctor in San Francisco gets paid more. Which is true.
You measure the value of a state by how much money it generates. That implicitly values someone's contributions in a high cost area over a low cost area, rather than looking at productivity as a function of value.
"You measure the value of a state by how much money it generates."
No, I judge the economic vibrancy of a state by how much money it generates. Why do you keep trying to put words in my mouth?
"That implicitly values someone’s contributions in a high cost area over a low cost area"
No, I made no judgements about which is better. I only pointed out which is economically stronger.
"rather than looking at productivity as a function of value."
The productivity (assuming you're using the economic term, not some weasely, vague meaning) is higher in economically sucessful areas. They almost always go hand-in-hand.
"Red states are already takers, sucking up more in public services than they pay. It’s the blue states that foot the bill."
Do some real number crunching on where federal dollars go. Red states do take more in federal funding, but it's not because of the traditional complaints. The blue states lead the way per capita in every form of welfare--medicaid, tanf, wic, etc. They pride themselves on it, after all.
Surprise, old people retire to states that are red. They also bring heavy per capita costs in social security and Medicare.
Shorter: yes, red states are net takers, but it doesn't count because ... reasons.
Blue states cost more because of policies they enact and the atmosphere those policies create. Red states cost more because of arbitrary decisions by the federal government and people flocking to those states after retirement. Those costs would still exist if the state disappeared.
And we're not even scratching the surface of what California will do to the union when its unfunded liabilities come due.
You’re wasting your time. Nelson isn’t interested in an honest discussion. His goal is to push democrat propaganda to advance the Party narrative. Just like a good bolshie.
"Blue states cost more because of policies they enact and the atmosphere those policies create."
Appare tly you missed the first day of wconomics, when they explained what supply and demand is and the impact low supply/high demand has on prices. Did you got to school in Alabama? It would explain a lot.
"Red states cost more because of arbitrary decisions by the federal government"
Red states almost never cost more, unless you compare an economically unsuccessful blue state like New Mexico with an economically vibrant red state like Georgia. Do you still want to claim that federal policy is responsibke for lower cost of living in red states?
"people flocking to those states after retirement"
People on a fixed income move to warmer, less expensive states when they're on a fixed income? Gee, why would they want to use the savings they generated in a high-income area in a low cost state? Especially since they don't need to worry about a strong job market any more.
"And we’re not even scratching the surface of what California will do to the union when its unfunded liabilities come due."
Reagan said the sa.e thing when he ran for President in the 1980. Don't worry. If you keep saying it, maybe one day it'll come true. Maybe the 45th year is the charm!
If the difference is retirees, then that should be factored out. For reasons obvious to dictated people who aren’t democrat shills.
"If the difference is retirees, then that should be factored out."
Sure, just ignore the largest demographic cohort in the history of America.
"For reasons obvious to dictated people who aren’t democrat shills."
It isn't obvious to anyone in the field of economics. So tell me, wizard of the economy, what are the obvious reasons that no one other than you can see?
Feature, not bug. It's the rules you all made. California and NY (w/NYC) are the homes of billionaires. We tax billionaires, right? And hard, because they're billionaires! Then we take their money and give it to poor people, and everyone knows the ignorant uneducated slobs living in red states need the money. And also, let's put military bases in red states, which account for a lot of that "government spending in red states. Maybe they're red states because the military votes, too? Now we have some ideas why the military is being driven to identity politics, too.
"Then we take their money and give it to poor people, and everyone knows the ignorant uneducated slobs living in red states need the money."
Depends on the slob. Yes, red states dominate the bottom third in education. But that doesn't mean that every red state citizen is poorly educated. It's just harder to get a good education in a red state than to a blue state.
That said, most red states take more in services than they contribute in revenue. Most blue states contribute more than take.
"And also, let’s put military bases in red states, which account for a lot of that “government spending in red states. "
That has nothing to do with federal social spending. That's where red states are net takers. The military isn't relevant (or even considered) in the analysis of spending on various social programs. Because, you know, military members work.
No, blue states lead the way on social spending per capita.
"https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/federal-aid-by-state"
Do you ever get tired of being wrong?
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/federal-aid-by-state
Of the bottom 17 states in per-capita federal aid, 11 are red states. Of the top 17 states, 12 are blue states (including New York and California).
If you want to compare federal benefits vs. taxes, it gets even worse.
http://www.wallethub. com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700
Of the worst 17 states, 14 are red states. Of the best 17 states, 9 are blue states.
So no, blue states do not "lead the way on social spending per capita". Red states do. By a lot.
"Blue states are the economic engine of America... "
I'm going to assume your knowledge of economics is about level with your knowledge of tax laws and ignore this one.
Oh, yeah. The economic power of Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, and West Virginia makes California, New York, Illinois, and Pennsylvania look paltry. Oh, wait...
Take out Florida, Texas, and Georgia and California's economy is bigger than every other red state combined. Red states are not good economic engines.
California is a product of a fantastic climate. Your turning that into some weird political argument is strange.
I'm not making a political argument. I'm making an economic argument. California has the most vibrant (and varied) economy in America. Blue states, by and large, have strong economies. Red states, by and large, do not.
And why would the reality that California has (in some parts) a fantastic climate make their economic success invalid?
Just above you claim that blue states are more economically successful because of their policies. Which is it?
We're now seeing the effects of blue policies now that remote work has leveled the playing field to a degree. People and businesses are uniformly fleeing those blue policies for red ones. California is successful despite its government, not because of it.
"Just above you claim that blue states are more economically successful because of their policies. "
No, I didn't. It's reasonable to assume that the policy choices of blue states have to be a factor in their economic success, given their dominance, while the policy choices of red states have to be a factor in their economic failures, given their weakness. But I'm making make no claims about how much or little policy impacts economic success. I'm merely pointing out that, on the whole, blue states are economically successful and red states are ... less so.
"We’re now seeing the effects of blue policies now that remote work has leveled the playing field to a degree."
The economic weakness of red states isn't a result of the pandemic. Red states have underperformed blue states for decades. They just aren't as economically successful, historically.
"People and businesses are uniformly fleeing those blue policies for red ones."
Not really. Retirees are moving to red states, especially in the Southeast, but young working-age families are not, with the notable exceptions of Georgia and Texas. College-educated professionals, from the Southest in particular, are leaving those states to work in California, New York, Chicago, Minneapolis, and other blue cities and states.
My partber's brother-in-law works for the largest financial fraud protection company in the world, FiServ. He moved from Orlando to the Philadelphia suburbs because they just built a new, massive office in New Jersey and closed all their offices in Florida.
So no, businesses and people aren't "uniformly" moving to red states.
"California is successful despite its government, not because of it."
Conservatives keep saying this, but there continues to be no actual proof that their balance isn't right. Since no red states have done a better job, there isn't any counter-example that you can point to where supply-side policies have succeeded. And Sa Brownback's Kansas is a great example of how disastrous those policies are.
Man I should stop reading this comment. I'd be interested to hear how reducing the allowable SALT deduction could increase the deficit.
Increasing the standard deduction could definitely increase the deficit, but it would do so by decreasing the tax burden of those who do not itemize; guess who disproportionately doesn't itemize? People making under $75k.
That's a tangential point though. The only way Trump's tax changes make you pay more in taxes is if you pay more than $10k in state and local taxes. In other words, those who pay less in federal taxes because their local jurisdiction takes more in taxes. This helps minimize the proportionally lower federal tax burden in blue cities by making them pay... what's that awesome phrase?... their fair share.
"I’d be interested to hear how reducing the allowable SALT deduction could increase the deficit."
Supply-side economic policies (which Trump's tax cuts were) always blow a hole in the deficit. Capping SALT and the mortgage interest deduction increases tax revenues, balancing out the decicits that every supply-side boondoggle (aka every Republican tax cut since Regan) causes. If you want to see what unrestrained supply-side tax policies look like, check out Sam Brownback's Kansas.
And politically it's a win for Rs, since it really only hurts the economically vibrant areas, which are largely blue states. No one in Hickville, Alabama makes enough money to hit $10,000 in SALT. Lots of people in blue states do because that's where most of the good jobs are.
"guess who disproportionately doesn’t itemize? People making under $75k"
Try living in a major metro area making $75k. Or even a middle class suburb in a net-positive state.
Again, that's the beauty, from an R perspective. Most of their constituents are going to get more. And since red states are mostly net-negative, they're sucking more from the Federal teat and the blue states are largely providing the milk.
"In other words, those who pay less in federal taxes because their local jurisdiction takes more in taxes."
Yes. That's what happens when you have more marketable skills and work in an economically vibrant area. You make more money, which means you pay more taxes.
"by making them pay… what’s that awesome phrase?… their fair share."
Fair is the same. Not punishing more successful states for having better jobs and paying more salary. But hey, I'm a flat tax guy, so that's always been my position.
Don't put artificial caps on anything. Pay the same FICA rate if you make $10k or $100k. Pay the same income tax on every taxable dollar. Pay the same on earned and unearned income. Fair is simple.
If you accept that an income tax is how we fund the government, the only way to avoid politicking like the SALT and mortgage interest caps is a flat tax.
Yes, fair is the same. So if you decide to live in an area that charges you 10% in state taxes, why should that mean you pay less in federal taxes? The federal government needs to stop subsidizing these areas by allowing them to pay less in federal taxes. The SALT deduction has no basis in fair.
Why should each dollar be taxed twice? The SALT deduction makes the dollars that are taxed by the state into a credit against federal taxes. When you remove that, each dollar is taxed by both the state and federal governments.
The SALT deduction exposes each dollar to taxation by only one government. Removing it means that the successful states, which are already funding the red state freeloaders, are being double taxed while the economically-challenged states, which are already takers, get taxed only once on each dollar.
That's your version of "fair"?
You haven't addressed the fact that state and local taxes taking precedent over federal taxes means that local jurisdictions can divert tax from the feds to their level. They can then spend that money while paying less into the federal coffers while still benefiting from federal dollars.
Again, if you choose to live in a place with higher taxes than another place, you should pay higher taxes than that other place.
"You haven’t addressed the fact that ... benefiting from federal dollars."
How is that gibberish relevant to the fair application of taxes? All of that would happen without the SALT cap. It literally makes no difference.
"Again, if you choose to live in a place with higher taxes than another place, you should pay higher taxes than that other place."
Apparently you don't understand how SALT taxes work relative to federal taxes.
Without a SALT cap, the maximum income tax you pay is the Federal rate. State taxes come out that total, so Fed Total = Max - State.
With a SALT cap, you are still responsible for the state tax, but can't count it against your Federal agter the capnis hit, so you are paying double on every dollar once the SALT cap is reached.
That means you are paying over 100% of the normal total in taxes. That's your definition of "fair" and/or "equal"? You need a dictionary.
"Pay the same on earned and unearned income."
This is so economically illiterate, I'm beginning to suspect you have no economics training at all.
How do you value unearned income? How do you pay taxes on income that doesn't yet exist? What happens when that unearned income turns into a real loss? Do you get a refund on your taxes that you didn't have the money to pay in the first place?
“This is so economically illiterate”
For someone who keeps trying to accuse me of being economically illiterate, you don’t seem to have any knowledge whatsoever. Every time you say I’m wrong, it turns out that you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.
I make most of my income from unearned income (investments). Capital gains taxes are significantly lower than the rate for my income bracket. So if I make $50k I almost always pay 15% in taxes, much less than a plumber who makes $50k working. Plus I don’t pay any FICA (Social Security taxes), which is an additional 6.2% for the worker (unless they are self-e.ployed, in which case they are responsibke for the employer’s half as well, making it an additional 12.4%).
I’m 52 and have been retired for seven years. Trust me, I understand my tax exposure.
“How do you value unearned income?”
It’s sale value minus cost basis and is reported on a 1099-B. You know what unearned income is, right?
“How do you pay taxes on income that doesn’t yet exist?”
Wow, apparently you don’t know what unearned income is. Unearned income isn’t investment value. How can you not understand such a basic concept? For your education, from the IRS:
“Unearned Income:
Unearned income includes investment-type income such as taxable interest, ordinary dividends, and capital gain distributions.
It also includes unemployment compensation, taxable social security benefits, pensions, annuities, cancellation of debt, and distributions of unearned income from a trust.”
You’re in over your head.
My mistake. I mistook unearned with unrealized.
You were incorrect about medical deductions being affected and I corrected you. Your claim is unfounded.
And I said you were correct about medical.
No, you just don’t understand what you’re talking about. You’ve done nothing but spout democrat talking points that are already discredited.
It’s what you do.
I've spouted accurate information about taxes. Do facts have a liberal bias? Because that seems to be what you're saying.
"No one in Hickville, Alabama makes enough money to hit $10,000 in SALT."
No, you're not bigoted at all.
Nevermind that there are over 20,000 residents of Huntsville Alabama holding advanced engineering degrees. Over half of the residents of Huntsville suburb, Madison, hold 4-year degrees, with Huntsville proper about 37% having 4-year degrees.
California is not any more well educated than Georgia, Florida, SC, NC...(https://statisticalatlas.com/United-States/Educational-Attainment)
“No, you’re not bigoted at all.”
You should learn what bigoted means. Pointing out the substandard performance of red state schools isn’t bigotry. Unless you think that facts have a liberal bias?
“Nevermind that there are over 20,000 residents of Huntsville Alabama holding advanced engineering degrees.”
Oh, you think that pointing out the best part of Alabama means you can ignore the totality of the state’s abysmal educational and economic performance? It’s cute when you try to mislead people by pretending only the good stuff exists.
“California is not any more well educated than Georgia, Florida, SC, NC…”
I didn’t say California was better educated. I said that it was economically more successful, as evidenced by the fact if yiu remove FL, TX, and GA, California’s economy is larger than every other red state combined. And blue states are mostly like California (economically vibrant and successful) while red states are largely not.
I also pointed out (as your link shows) that education in red states (and specifically in the Southeast) is bad. The 5 worst states for educational attainment from the link YOU posted? West Virginia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Alabama. Immediately after is a breakdown by county. The Southeast is so white it looks like a blank sheet of paper, while the darker (high attainment) colors are predominantly in blue states.
Your link literally supports my point. Never mind that the bottom 10 states in education are perennially 9 red (usually Southeastern) states and New Mexico.
Pointing out that red states underperform blue states in education and economy isn’t bigotry. It’s data-driven fact.
Ah, a tax break that can only be characterized as "for the rich".
Only in poor states. In successful states, it hits the middle class.
By making them pay their fair share. You decided to move to a state with an income tax? You get to pay that income tax, along with the same federal taxes that everyone else has to pay.
It isn't about the income tax level, it's about the income. When the base is twice as big, a 2% difference in effective tax rate is a rounding error.
And see above for why yiur definitiin of "fair" is that more successful people get some of their dollars taxed twice, while less successful people only get their dollars taxed once.
https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1687143097107456012?t=oBqNcLsejUzdg4ptXLn46g&s=19
This interview with MLK’s biographer about the fiction that is Barack Obama’s life story is absolutely fascinating. Every word of it. If you want to know how we ended up with the toxic identity politics currently destroying America, you need to read this piece.
[Link]
You're right - Obama's mere existence as a Harvard Law grad turned POTUS really pissed off the Limbaugh Rednecks and caused all the political division we see today.
It didn't exist when Bill Clinton and Dumbya were in office.
Yeah, did not exist under Bush.
Sure.
Keep on believing.
You clearly missed the gist of my comment. Political division and hatred goes back to the Clinton years and the emergence of Redneck talk radio.
We have the likes of Fat Rush Limbaugh (King of the Rednecks) to thank for it.
Yup, no political hate before Clinton.
Sure.
Keep on believing.
We know you're not very bright. You have an odd need to constantly prove it over and over.
Sure there was hatred prior to 1992. But it got mainstreamed in the media in the 90s.
When I was a kid I watched “Firing Line” and thought politics was high-brow because that was normal for the time. It was real debate.
Now political discussion is coarse and anti-intellectual.
The Jackson-Adams elections would beg to differ.
turd's a lying piece of lefty shit, but his immense ignorance adds to it, no?
Jackson challenged the elections in court. He was the first insurrectionist.
What the fuck do you think you're doing here everyday with your fifty-centing and trolling?
Successfully shitting in the punchbowl at the party.
turd lies. turd lies when he knows he’s lying. turd lies when we know he’s lying. turd lies when he knows that we know he’s lying.
turd lies. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit and a pederast besides.
You can thank Jon Stewart for that, mind you.
And Reagan was LOATHED by his opponents. Ted Kennedy reached out to the Soviets to help the Dems defeat him.
Craig Kilborn started it!
You’re a liar, a racist, and a misogynist. You were also banned for posting links to child pornography.
turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
Of course. History started when you were born.
"Political division and hatred goes back to the Clinton years and the emergence of Redneck talk radio."
Oh wow, the hottest of the hot takes since the Civil War.
I know this will surprise you but there was a time when American TV consisted of just ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS.
Guessing there weren't any newspapers either.
Or radio for that matter.
Or radio.
Typically two major newspapers in any sizable city.
And Buttplug’s inclusion of PBS in the list of TV stations with national news shows he’s a young whippersnapper. It used to be only CBS, NBC, and ABC.
Typically two major newspapers in any sizable city.
Only more recently. You used to have a variety of newspapers in most cities, even in languages other than English, prior to the advent of TV in the 1950s. There would even be morning and afternoon papers. And, get this, newspapers would take political sides often.
That’s impossible!
And he forgot all about OG TV, like the Dumont Network. Of course his attention is divided by all the kiddie porn he watches.
Local stations not being a thing, huh?
turd lies. turd lies when he knows he’s lying. turd lies when we know he’s lying. turd lies when he knows that we know he’s lying.
turd lies. turd is a TDS-added lying pile of lefty shit and a pederast besides.
Mind you when Jefferson ran for president his opposition refer to him as the bastard half breed between a nigger and a squaw.
But today it's different
Guess that was before they had a clear idea of how genetics works.
Or just got carried away with their flaming. It happens...
I think they got carried away with their flaming.
From the same election:
“a hideous hermaphroditical character which has neither the force and firmness of a man, not the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.”
- James Thomson Callender, allegedly hired by Jefferson.
BTW, find a different way to take:
"It didn’t exist when Bill Clinton and Dumbya were in office."
That is what you wrote and was responded to. You then said I "missed the gist". So, tell me, what did I miss in your verbatim quote I included here?
Also, in case you want to get cute, your post is currently unedited.
Try re-calibrating your sarcometer. While I try not to put words in others' mouths, I'm about 99% certain that sentence was not intended to be taken as a literal statement of fact.
Poe's Law.
You must have missed the 1980 election. I was just 16 but it was obvious the corporate media smeared Reagan at every turn. War monger (really? compared to Bush/Obama/Clinton/Biden?), had dementia..(Biden?), was stupid (this was the most popular one pushed by the usual NYT/WaPo bolshies who still think anyone who isn't a member of the CFR is a moron.
Then there was NIxon who was a progressive in about every way possible, nuked bretton woods, closed the gold window, put in place wage and price controls, essentially started racial quotas in the Federal Govt yet the media hated him....you have to ask yourself why? He supported their loved bolshie policies..
The only thing Nixon ever did right was make some great enemies.
It didn’t exist when Bill Clinton and Dumbya were in office.
Your use of "Dumbya" belies the fact that it did indeed exist when George W. Bush was in office, that you are biased, and that you are a liar.
All we need to know about you is that you posted dark web links to underage porn.
Is your keyboard sticky from spanking it?
Thank you for the post, I read the entire article and it was absolutely fascinating. So many different topics and trends touched on, gives a lot of food for thought.
While not being pro-Feinstein, your headline is incredibly misleading. She is allowing her to deal with a dispute involving her late husband's estate, between her daughter and his three daughters from prior relationships.
She should not be anywhere near Congress, but shallow reportage is shallow reportage.
Also gender identity is bullshit and the mental health field is further beclowning itself demanding support of it. Good on FL for saying that they will not permit BS to be "taught"
Yes we know. Gender identity is bullshit. Why everyone knows that men wear pants and women wear skirts because of XX and XY chromosomes.
Yeah, THAT is what "gender identity" is about.
If you do not know, you're not required to broadcast it.
That's the basic idea. That sex and gender are two different things. Something that your team can't seem to grasp.
No, it is not the basic idea. Not in the same ballpark.
YOUR team keeps conflating the two. So fuck off with that "They are two seperate things"
He knows that lie doesn't work, but it's all he's got. If gender were different from sex and a social construct then why the need for a "gender affirming" sex change.
Pedo Jeffy is just pushing democrat talking points, as usual.
You are such a dishonest leftist hack.
Everyone here knows 10 - 15 years ago you would have ridiculed the idea that a male-bodied human can get pregnant.
Everyone here knows 10 - 15 years ago you would have ridiculed the idea that reciting the incantation "my pronouns are xe / xir" allows a human to opt out of being male or female.
Because these are absurd ideas. You know they're absurd. You pretend to believe them now because liberals have decided they're the current thing. And you want to sit at the cool kids' table.
Because these are absurd ideas. You know they’re absurd. You pretend to believe them now because liberals have decided they’re the current thing. And you want to sit at the cool kids’ table.
Yeah, this is really what it boils down to. The "center right" is absolutely desperate for social validation. This is why Laursen is always whining about the "Mean Girls" club.
Everyone here knows 10 – 15 years ago you would have ridiculed the idea that a male-bodied human can get pregnant.
Who has said that a "male-bodied human" can get pregnant?
What some people have said, is that a person who identifies as a man, but who is biologically a woman, is biologically capable of becoming pregnant. That is a different claim.
Everyone here knows 10 – 15 years ago you would have ridiculed the idea that reciting the incantation “my pronouns are xe / xir” allows a human to opt out of being male or female.
Maybe, I am not so arrogant as to force my view of how a person ought to behave in terms of a gender identity, on to some stranger that I have never met, regardless of whatever pronouns they may choose for themselves.
And if by "leftist" you mean "a person who is open to new ideas and not so closed-minded as to think that the sum of all human knowledge was discovered centuries ago and there is nothing new to learn ever", then I suppose that makes me guilty as charged.
That must make you a closed-minded asshole then.
Who has said that a “male-bodied human” can get pregnant?
What some people have said, is that a person who identifies as a man, but who is biologically a woman, is biologically capable of becoming pregnant. That is a different claim.
Then what you have described is called a "woman" or "female". No male placental mammal can get pregnant. That person identifying as a "man" is not a man, and should never be called as such.
Thinking you are a different gender is a mental illness..like most of marxism. Treating mental illness with sterilization/ mutilation of children is inhuman...and honestly pure evil.
There are no "transgnders"..only mentally ill folks. Now you can be mentally ill in a free country but pushing this on kids is sick.
Because these are absurd ideas.
If you think that the ideas really are just so totally absurd, then make the argument. Don't just say it. MAKE THE ARGUMENT. Instead you all just fall back onto an appeal to tradition. "Male and female have always been this way and always shall be this way and therefore I win." That's not an argument that is a logical fallacy, and it's not even an accurate one.
The argument is that the words 'man' or 'woman' can not be defined without referring to either biology or a stereotypical gender norm.
A definition referring in any way to biology contradicts the argument that the two are separate.
A definition referring in any way to a gender stereotype contradicts the argument that there is any significance in being recognized legally as a 'man' or 'woman'.
A definition that is circular (e.g. a man is not a woman) or completely subjective (e.g. it's whatever you want it to be) is logically meaningless.
***listening to the crickets chirp while waiting for the definition that would refute my argument.***
Sorry, missed your comment earlier.
A definition referring in any way to biology contradicts the argument that the two are separate.
The biological definition of "male" and "female", and the sociological/gender definition of "male" and "female", are not completely separate, but they are not identical either. They are related to each other.
I prefer the definition that the biological definition is based on genetics, i.e., XX or XY chromosomes; and the sociological/gender definition is based on conventional gender roles associated with the biological sex. They are connected with each other but they are not the same.
A definition referring in any way to a gender stereotype contradicts the argument that there is any significance in being recognized legally as a ‘man’ or ‘woman’.
Why? I don't follow.
Even if you go by anatomy or genetics there are still people who don't fit neatly into a strict binary classification, yet another fact the trans screechers can't seem to grasp. Not everyone's anatomy matches their genes, and there are multiple gene combinations other than XX or XY. (But just try explaining that someone who thinks their chimp-version high school biology class makes them an expert...) It's true that such conditions are uncommon. But with 350 million people in the US and 8 billion worldwide, even a tiny percentage adds up to a significant number of actual human beings.
Conflating genetic abnormalities with people choosing a different gender via hormones and surgery doesn't help the cause.
XX vs XY chromosomes is a far more significant different, biologically speaking, than a few genes selecting for skin color. And "race" is as much as a social construct as is "gender".
So why is it anathema to the left to even contemplate people "identifying" as a different race but to be celebrated when people ignore their biology to select (and medically force their bodies) into a different gender (sex).
Why is it that, as we were told almost all my life, that homosexual people were "born that way". But now, if a gay man (biological male) choses to transition to female (and, according to "the rules" SHE IS A WOMAN!), but is still attracted to men, SHE is now interested in the opposite sex, and pretty much by definition is no longer homosexual. So is homosexuality a choice?
Since "the rules" admonish that one must merely state their preferred gender and it must be accepted, can a man simply say "I'm identifying as a woman", choose to eschew surgery, hormones, or adopting any traditional female accoutrements, and keep pronouns he/him? If "he" stays in "his" long-term relationship with his female wife, is "he" (who is now a WOMAN by "the rules") in a lesbian relationship?
You are just terrible at this. Again, you're not even presenting your own side faithfully.
"What some people have said, is that a person who identifies as a man, but who is biologically a woman, is biologically capable of becoming pregnant. That is a different claim."
Here's your first major screwup. You just used language your trans-friendly leftist pals would denounce as "transphobic." You just admitted pregnant "transmen" are, in fact, still women in the biological, anatomical sense. Oops!
What next, jeff? You gonna accidentally admit Lia Thomas is a "biologically male" or "male-bodied" athlete competing against women? That's the anti-transwomen-in-women's-sports position. You're supposed to pretend you *reject* that characterization.
"Maybe, I am not so arrogant as to force my view of how a person ought to behave in terms of a gender identity, on to some stranger that I have never met, regardless of whatever pronouns they may choose for themselves."
Pathetic strawman. I don't want to "force" luggage thief Sam Brinton to wear a suit and tie. He can wear dresses (if they're not stolen), grow his hair long or wear a wig, put on a pound of makeup, paint his nails, do whatever. I just refuse to pretend he's something other than an obvious male. I'm under no obligation to play along with self-indulgent "they / them" nonsense.
"That’s not an argument that is a logical fallacy, and it’s not even an accurate one."
Amazing. Complaints about "logical fallacies" from the guy (badly) representing the side whose new dogma states "A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman."
Huh. So first you call me a "leftist", and then you accuse me of not presenting *my own side* correctly. Maybe it's because I'm not really a leftist, and I don't care if I am not presenting the "leftist" side correctly. I am however presenting my own side.
If a person claims that a biological man is biologically capable of becoming pregnant, then that person is wrong.
Your team is the one who continually mixes up the biological and sociological meanings of the words 'man' and 'woman', most of the time purposefully IMO, so as to cast your opponents' arguments in a deceitful light. Show me the person who actually claimed *specifically* that a biological man is biologically capable of becoming pregnant. Instead, I'm willing to bet that this person probably used the word 'man' in the gender sense, as in a person who identifies as a man but who is a biological female, but YOU interpreted the word in the biological sense, dishonestly, so as to cast the person as a crazy moron. That is after all the basic schtick of demagogues like LibsOfTikTok.
I just refuse to pretend he’s something other than an obvious male. I’m under no obligation to play along with self-indulgent “they / them” nonsense.
That's fine. You don't have to "play along". You ought to have full liberty to insult Sam Brinton to his/her face if you want. HOWEVER, your refusal to "play along" does not IMO extend to forcing HIM/HER to adopt YOUR rules. It also does not restrain others from making decisions based on your choices. If others around you decide that you are being a bigoted asshole, and act accordingly, then that is THEIR free choice to make and YOU have no right to compel them to make any other choice. Sound good?
Nah, it’s your team that really struggles with reality on this one and no amount of pseudo-intellectual rambling about social constructs and amorphous positioning is going to change that.
The problem those on the right and in the middle have is all of the logical fallacies that have to be implemented to uphold the gender movement.
One minute it’s if you like dolls you must be a girl. The next minute it’s how dare you stereotype or assume someone’s gender if they like dolls. Either dressing up like a woman instantly makes you a woman through simple stereotypical cosplay, or it’s only an expression of one’s gender identity at that moment and has nothing to do with biological sex.
The whole ideology is so completely devoid of rationality and logic. That’s the reason that the question “what is a woman” can’t (or won’t) be answered. And when your movement is scared of the most basic questions about it, then you know it is built on absurdity.
You just laid out all the reasons a sophist like chemjeff would enjoy critical gender theory.
That's not "a tradition", it's "the science". Attempting to abuse language in that manner is simply begging the question, you're assuming the answer in the statement of your position. Not cool.
Dear sarc, this is what gaslighting looks like.
It’s what psychology looks like, dumbass.
If you're committed.
No, dude, Jeffy is participating fully in actual gaslighting. You may wish to acquaint yourself with it.
Gaslighting is attempting to make someone question what they know. I don’t see him doing that at all.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gaslighting
2: the act or practice of grossly misleading someone especially for one's own advantage
You're really bad at this. From the same linky:
...psychological manipulation of a person usually over an extended period of time that causes the victim to question the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories...
Which is basically what I just said.
You do realize there are two definitions there, Sarco. Jeffy's use of gaslighting follows the second well to the letter.
Lol. No it isnt retard. Holy shit are you bad at this sarc.
jeff’s not “grossly misleading,” buddyroo. Even if he was, where's he seeking advantage?
You're really, really bad at this.
Jeffy grossly misleads all the fucking time.
You are seriously terrible at this.
He is correctly observing conservatives' obsession with gender stereotypes and fear of thinking anything different.
What gender stereotypes? Biology?
Jeff is the one who believes if a boy likes playing with dolls or pink they have to cut their dicks off.
Jeff is the one who believes if a girl likes sports and the out doors they have to cut their tits off.
Conservatives are saying a kid can enjoy doing what they enjoy doing without cutting anything off as it isnt based on gender.
Jeff is literally the one stereotyping here dumbass.
You know, you hate-mongers start off with "gays and trannies are un-natural" and progress on to saying "don't say gay in class" to "gays and trannies should be out of sight, out of mind, and stay in their closets and shadows" to "gays and trannies should be either fixed or eliminated"! You suffer from "unquenchable thirst" (for Superior Smugness and Power, etc.), which is a synonym for... EVIL!!!! E-V-I-L!!!!
You should really seek help for your obsession. Among other things, only about one trans person in three ever has any kind of surgery. The percentage who have genital surgery is much lower than that.
Laughable, even for you. If anything, the pressure from certain self-proclaimed “conservatives” is one factor that drives gender non-conforming kids to declare themselves trans. I’ve
The only people using gender stereotypes are the trans folks on the left. They're the ones claiming that playing with Barbies makes one a girl, playing with GI Joe makes one a boy, wearing a dress makes one a woman, peeing standing up makes one a man. That's them, not the conservatives.
The people outlawing the mentioning of those subjects in school are not obsessed?
Really?
Explain what purpose teaching the latest unscientific fad has in value as schools fail teaching basic subjects sarc.
No matter how many dresses I wear, hormones, I take, or bits and kibble I cut off, those things won’t make me a woman.
So what the states are banning is some teacher saying “yes it does”.
The people outlawing the mentioning of those subjects in school are not obsessed?
But no one has done that.
They've restricted the mention of them to appropriate ages.
There are no 5 year olds in AP psych, sarc.
And if you think that a boy --of ANY age-- who likes to cook, or play with barbies, or wears pink or likes boys needs to be told he needs to cut his dick off then you're part of the problem.
They’ve restricted the mention of them to appropriate ages.
If you continue reading you’ll see they defined inappropriate as all the way up to grade 12.
And if you think that a boy –of ANY age– who likes to cook, or play with barbies, or wears pink or likes boys needs to be told he needs to cut his dick off then you’re part of the problem.
Very few people are saying that, and despite what the trolls say I'm not one of them.
If you read the actual law instead of preferred narratives you would know you are wrong sarc.
This is the AP board saying they violate the law, not the state of Florida.
An AP psych class is a HS level intro class. Amazing how even college psych majors could earn degrees without mentioning transgenderism. Yet you believe that the teaching of gender bullshit is a core aspect of psychology that needs to be taught in HS.
Here's the actual bill: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/Filed/PDF
3. A school district may not encourage classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students.
Where does it state "Grade 12"?
FTA:
Lawmakers left it open to the Florida Board of Education to decide what the latter part meant—and the Board decided earlier this year that it meant most discussion of gender or sexual orientation was off limits for students up through grade 12, too.
Got a link for that, Sarc?
From The Article. Scroll up you ignorant moron. There's a link in the sentence in the article. Do you want me to wipe your ass too? Fucking fuck you're tiresome.
Again sarc puts someone’s dishonest interpretation of the law above the actual words in the law.
Then you have no other source than ENB's conjecture above? Again, where does it say this in any law or policy?
You really are determined to live up to your handle. If anything, pressure from "conservatives" to conform to gender norms is what pushes kids to identify as trans. If they really were free to do as they please, most of them probably never would.
He is correctly observing conservatives’ obsession with gender stereotypes and fear of thinking anything different.
No, he's whining that conservatives are pushing back against the left's obsessions with the latest trends in gender marxism.
Gender marxism? That makes no sense at all unless you have no idea of what Marxism is about and just use the word to describe anyone who disagrees with you politically.
Gender marxism? That makes no sense at all unless you have no idea of what Marxism is about and just use the word to describe anyone who disagrees with you politically.
It makes plenty of sense when you've read the academic literature on it. But I doubt you'd be any more interested in such things than chemtard was when I listed off numerous authors and references for him a few weeks ago.
Anyone claiming that marxism "is just about economics" either doesn't understand its philosophical pretenses and how it's influenced radical left academic thought since the end of World War II, or is being deliberately obtuse and deflecting.
Anyone claiming that marxism “is just about economics” either doesn’t understand its philosophical pretenses and how it’s influenced radical left academic thought since the end of World War II, or is being deliberately obtuse and deflecting.
My understanding of Marxism is mostly from Thomas Sowell’s book by that name, which describes it mostly as class envy. Not sure how that fits into gender and sexuality, unless as a class struggle. Even that would be a stretch.
It’s not important enough to me to read literature on the subject. Maybe you could sum it up in a few sentences?
My understanding of Marxism is mostly from Thomas Sowell’s book by that name, which describes it mostly as class envy. Not sure how that fits into gender and sexuality, unless as a class struggle. Even that would be a stretch.
I love Sowell, but he was writing from a perspective of an academic whose experience was mostly in the university of the 1970s and 80s.
It’s not important enough to me to read literature on the subject.
This is just deflection.
Maybe you could sum it up in a few sentences?
Marxism is based on the primary idea that “property” is the cornerstone of political power and social hierarchy, and that human history can be boilded down to a dynamic of oppressed/oppressor, so only by abolishing private property can true equality come about. This came out of his frustration that the Hegelian dialectic had never been applied to the material world.
The neo-marxists and ethno-marxists simply shifted this principle on to their own specific hobbyhorses within the cultural realm. For Marcuse, it was American cultural institutions and norms, for Freire, it was education, for Crenshaw and other black academics, it was race, for Gayle Rubin and Judith Butler, it was sex. That’s why when you hear something like “abolish whiteness,” they’re just substituting “whiteness” for “property,’ as anything they equate with a power dynamic that results in “marginalization” is automatically bad and needs to be eliminated.
The recent push since about 2010 to normalize transgenderism as a perfectly healthy form of self-identification was rooted in the arguments about “social liberation” put forth by the neo-marxists, as the former had ensconsed themselves in academia and subsequently influenced at least 2 generations worth of academics in the same seminarian pretenses, becoming increasingly radical as time went on. That’s why Gen-X and Millennial professors sound so completely out of touch with how society actually operates in the real world, and also why there’s been a not-so-subtle effort in recent years to make pederasty more acceptable as a sexual identity.
In this response sarc doesn’t understand that marxism uses different avenues to foment stride. They have broadened their approach from just economic to sex, gender, and race because the latter 3 allow even the rich to be part of the assumed underclass. The writings of the colleges promoting critical theories have literally admitted this in their writings. But since sarc is ignorant he pretends it is made up.
Sarc i know you're too lazy to read anything, but James Lindsay has a podcast where he goes through the university literature regarding all the various critical theories. Instead of arguing with everyone on a subject you admit you're ignorant on, why not educate yourself?
Instead of arguing with everyone on a subject you admit you’re ignorant on, why not educate yourself?
The biggest tell is that, when provided with this literature, fat heads like chemtard always end up going, "well, I don't have time to read that," or "I have no interest in what that has to say."
Meanwhile, they bitch when they don't get a cite for every random declaration like Mike always does.
I don't mind giving sarc the info because at least he's not so blinkered yet that he takes the left's arguments and propaganda at face value like Mike and chemtard do.
I doubt sarc will be able to comprehend what RR just wrote.
This is just deflection.
I was trying to show a little humility and give you a bit of respect. No need to be a dick like JesseAz.
And thanks, you gave me some food for thought.
Sarc... I literally give you citations and books and then a year later you admit you didn't educate yourself or read them then still make the same refuted bullshit talking points. You have zero fucks of interest in learning topics as you've shown time and time again. Respect is earned. Youre nowhere close to having earned it and even admit to having zero desire to earn it.
Next month you will defend the various critical theories yet again because you will not have educated yourself despite given the resources to.
See?
It is simple really. People like RRWP and Jesse commit the "Hitler loved his mother" fallacy over and over again.
Hitler loved his mother.
You love your mother.
Therefore you are a Nazi.
They find arguments that are superficially similar to what a Marxist might argue, and then they claim that because of that, the people making these arguments are all full-blown Marxists with all of the baggage that the word carries. It is just a way to smear people they don't like with a dirty label, like calling them racists or commies. It is a way to tarnish the idea without having to argue against it on its merits.
The biggest tell is that, when provided with this literature, fat heads like chemtard always end up going, “well, I don’t have time to read that,” or “I have no interest in what that has to say.”
I don't care what Marcuse has to say if it's not relevant to the discussion. Instead, what RRWP likes to do is something like this:
Marcuse was a Marxist from 50 years ago who said "conservative speech should not be tolerated".
Some random Twitter dude the other day said "conservative speech should not be tolerated".
Therefore any mention of censoring conservatives anywhere should be regarded as a manifestation of MARXISM
It's stupid and irrelevant. It's just a way to drag Marxism into a discussion that really has no bearing on the matter.
It is simple really. People like RRWP and Jesse commit the “Hitler loved his mother” fallacy over and over again
Someone who can't be bothered to read real, actual books on the subjects at hand is really in no position to be accusing anyone of intellectual laziness, fat boy. I realize you think your sophistry makes you a complex thinker, but you really give the game away with that one.
They find arguments that are superficially similar to what a Marxist might argue, and then they claim that because of that, the people making these arguments are all full-blown Marxists with all of the baggage that the word carries.
LOL--"We can't call people who espouse Marxism to be marxists! That's just not honest!"
For fuck's sake, there's clips from the current actors strike going on right now where they're parroting marxist quotes about labor value. But somehow, promoting marxist ideas of power dynamics doesn't make these people marxist, according to chemtard. Guess he's adopted the "no BLM membership card" argument his bitch buddy White Mike has.
There you go, the same fallacy again.
Tell me, RRWP, all the people who believe in the concept of "supply and demand", are they all anarcho-capitalists who worship at the altar of Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand? OF COURSE NOT. Anarcho-capitalism is a more coherent and consistent ideology that has an entire set of interlocking beliefs. Just plucking one or two out doesn't make one a committed anarcho-capitalist. It is the same with Marxism - just saying one or two things about the labor theory of value doesn't make one a full-blown Marxist.
You are smart enough to know this, but instead dishonestly portray anyone who says anything that is maybe a little Marxist-adjacent as being no different than a protege of Herbert Marcuse himself. That is why your crap about Marcuse is meaningless. It is just a way to tarnish the argument and smear the opponent with the label of MARXISM without having to rebut the argument on its merits.
If someone was going around quoting Wealth of Nations and saying we needed to upend society to allow the full free market, it wouldn’t be unreasonable for someone to call that person a capitalist.
If someone was going around quoting Wealth of Nations and saying we needed to upend society to allow the full free market, it wouldn’t be unreasonable for someone to call that person a capitalist.
chemtard knows this, but he has to twist himself in the most ridiculous knots over this because of his anti-rightist tribalism.
There you go, the same fallacy again.
What, you mean like the No True Marxist bullshit you're spewing here?
Speaking of gaslighting, I don't need to unmute JesseAz to know he's doing his best to gaslight. The main reason why I mute him is because he accuses me of things I never said nor did, then calls me a liar when I point out the truth. That is textbook gaslighting. Or stupidity. With him I can never tell.
You really have no idea what gaslighting is, do you.
There's another example of gaslighting. You're on a roll!
Still don't understand the term do you sarc.
He only knows “ math”
But math without numbers.
Oh, cute. A troll party.
He does not.
If you make a post critical of sarc, it is gaslighting. Or you're tulpa.
You dont understand words you choose to utilize. It makes you look retarded.
I literally posted links to your comments. Why do you lie about that? You even complain i have bookmarks of your comments lol.
SHOW US THE LIST!
Can he scan a napkin from bar?
Sarc can’t afford to drink at the bar. Strictly bottom shelf half gallons under the overpass.
Boone's Farm then?
Mad dog 2020
Lol. Sarc has fully embraced the left.
It’s what psychology looks like, dumbass.
Increasingly so yes- and yes ... psychology is increasingly a gaslighting discipline, dare I say - pseudoscience ?
That doesn't even rise to the level of "bad idea". Your comment is really bad strawmanning.
It also obfuscates the fact that it's YOU and your side who define "man" and "woman" by using stereotypes. People on the anti-trans side understand that male and female INDIVIDUALS have a wide, wide spectrum of interests, capabilities and preferences. Women should be able to like building things without getting their tits cut off and a lifetime regimen of drugs, and men should be able to dance, arrange flowers and cry when they watch K-Dramas.
Here is what jeff supports..
'Let. Little. Children. See. Penises. And. Vulvas. Of. Various. Ages. And. Sizes. In. A. Casual. Normalized. Totally. Safe. Way.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12367279/Journalism-professor-claims-children-exposed-adult-GENITALIA-prepare-seeing-naked-trans-people-locker-rooms-shocking-jab-swimmer-Riley-Gaines.html
Man, you're an ignorant retard. You do realize that pants came about more for utility of riding horses than anything else, particularly in battle? The ancients wore dresses (women) and tunics (men).
Who needs 24 different brands of loincloth?
Ted Nugent?
"Gender identity is bullshit."
It doesn't matter. Once you go from gender being something more certain (synonymous with sex, for pretty much all of time), to completely arbitraty and at the whims of confused and attention seeking people, it becomes meaningless.
Take renowned scientist Degrasse Tyson's recent ramblings. "Today I feel 80% feminine so I wear a dress, tomorrow I feel 80% masculine so I wear a muscle shirt..." and the retard cant even see that "gender identity" being so fluid that it equates to changing to a different pair of shoes...makes it utterly meaningless and pointless.
It honestly just begs that we focus on objective reality. Oh you are a girl today, because you put on a dress? Or a unicorn because you have a rainbow shirt and a horn? Cool. No one gives a fuck you are a male, the made up lore is all bullshit and could change when your mood does, therefore, no one should care whats in your pretend world
And contrary to sarcs defense of stereotypes, it is Tyson assigning behaviors to gender.
Gender identity has NEVER been synonymous with sex. Biological sex is strictly binary. Gender identity has always constituted a RANGE of possible identities, never strictly binary. Even when there were more socially strict gender roles, not every man was a stereotypical 'jock', and not every woman was a stereotypical 'girly-girl'.
It honestly just begs that we focus on objective reality.
Okay then. What is the 'objective reality' for your FEELINGS about how you identify in terms of gender?
Once again it is analogous to the difference between citizenship and patriotism. One can objectively determine one's citizenship status, through various legal paperwork. But patriotism is a sense of feeling of pride (or lack thereof) in one's country. It is simply not possible to OBJECTIVELY determine how much of a patriot a person is. That is a subjective determination based on one's own innermost feelings.
“Gender identity has NEVER been synonymous with sex.”
Then why get a sex change to match your gender?
That fake argument has been debunked before, he's simply ignored it and pretends it never happened.
Might as well. After being having his sophist bullshit arguments crushed, Jeffy resets and it’s like it never happened. Then he repeats the same discredited arguments. Day after day, year after year.
And see, this is the kind of pretzel logic and reasoning that has to be employed in order to uphold the moronic trans and gender movements.
There is so much reality that has to be ignored to take these kinds of positions.
> renowned scientist Degrasse Tyson
Cites facts not in evidence. This dude was never anything but an attention seeker and hardly "renowned" in scientific circles. His shtick is to try and look all sciencey for the regular joe so he can get as many interviews and television appearances as possible.
His main job before that was running one of those planetariums where they show stars on a dome and do the Pink Floyd laser show an what not.
That was my first date with my wife.
Well, the tip-toed-around part of his career is that he's the go-to figurehead all them ignernt MAGAs can see and go:
"Well mah goodness. Ain't that nice Cleon? They got coloreds who can do the science now! Ain't that some big city bizness?"
"'Course they do Maw. Anything you can think of, they got it! Cats playin' the piano, people eatin' soap, a man who can juggle chickens and chainsaws...and I think he was a Democrat!"
"Well, he would be, I reckon...chickens and chainsaws."
"Yep. Musta been."
Hahahahahahaha
Is a lesbian “transphobic” if she doesn’t want to date a transgender woman with a beard?
Some gay men refuse to date transmen
A 2018 study concluded that about 12% of gay men, 29% of lesbians, and 48% of bisexual/queer/non-binary people say they would date a transgender love interest.
BBC wrote about lesbians who feel pressured to date trans women. One of the questions the publication asked was, “Is a lesbian transphobic if she does not want to have sex with trans women?” Among those who spoke up, some lesbians claimed they were all but forced to date trans women or they would get “shunned and even threatened for speaking out.”
A 24-year-old lesbian shared with BBC what happened when she refused to be romanticly involved with a transgender woman. She said, “They said they would strangle me with a belt if they were in a room with me and Hitler. That was so bizarrely violent, just because I won’t have sex with trans women.”
Someone joked, “I am a lesbian transwoman in a loving relationship with a cisgender woman. We call that a traditional heterosexual marriage.”
In 2020, Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust, in partnership with an LGBTQ+ charity, started suggesting the term “bonus hole” [instead of vagina] be used to support trans men and nonbinary people. They also suggested the phrase “front hole.” As one person wrote, “Everyone sure is worried about offending trans people but don’t give a bonus hole about offending women, do they?”
“Incredibly misleading”? Honestly?
First of all, the headline doesn’t mention Feinstein at all. There is a short paragraph, containing a link that anyone who wants to find out more can follow. It gives a couple of quotes to the linked article to give an idea what it’s about, and ENB doesn’t editorialize at all.
Caw caw!
"Good on FL for saying that they will not permit BS to be “taught”"
Gender has a definite place in psychology teaching.
Specifically, gender dysphoria. The delusion that you have an opposite gender brain trapped in the other gender's body is probably the clearest indication of mental illness and should be taught as such.
I wholeheartedly support teaching this. Though I have a feeling the indoctrination going on is far from it. I suspect in the next DSM gender dysphoria definition will be radically changed to better align with the rainbow mafia's goals.
Also gender identity is bullshit and the mental health field is further beclowning itself demanding support of it. Good on FL for saying that they will not permit BS to be “taught”
So, your position is state government’s judgement of what ideas a child in high school can be exposed to should supersede the child’s parents’ judgement.
The link is to a board, advanced placement, deciding what should be taught, not parents. You chose the fucking group you want to defer to based on which one you agree with retard. Parents can teach their kids whatever they want. Schools shouldn’t be teaching pseudo science and political bullshit.
You are aware that FL allows children to be taught it if parents have an opt out for it, right?
Tell me you are aware of that, please.
Mike Liarson is a squawking bird named Dee and should be treated as such.
Did you read the blog post above?
You mean the one with the deep legal analysis by somebody with a...hmm..."master's degree in public communication, and [attended] Ohio University, where she studied playwriting, English, and film."
This easily qualifies as a class with an opt out clause. Hell, parents have to OPT IN for the student to even take the class.
It is baffling how the same people who can find a right to gay marriage in a document that never mentions it once cannot understand laws that ARE written.
Surprised Mike didn't correct you with THE Ohio University.
That only applies to the university in Columbus. Ohio U. is in Athens, OH.
There's a difference between Ohio and Ohio State. Two completely different institutions. Only the later claims "THE".
P.S. Go Bobcats!
You mean the one with...
I mean the one with a link to a Washington Post article that claims that a Florida state board ruled the AP class cannot include the gender content.
I'm not saying the Washington Post article is correct in its reporting. Maybe it's not -- that's why I've asked in comments on this page if someone has a cite that refutes the Washington Post's reporting.
But, jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick, at least read and comprehend what the article says before arguing with me.
And people literally provided you a quote of the text of the law.
Stop playing ignorant.
One of my favorite things when teaching new attorneys how to practice is telling them "RSS" when they ask certain questions. I invariably get back, "what does RSS mean?" I reply, "it means, Read the Statute, Stupid."
https://www.npr.org/2023/08/05/1192355292/ap-psychology-florida-college-board
AP psychology class may be available to Florida students after all
In a letter to state superintendents, Florida Education Commissioner Manny Diaz Jr. said the state believed the psychology course could be taught "in its entirety."
n its statement Thursday, the College Board said DeSantis' administration "has effectively banned AP Psychology in the state by instructing Florida superintendents that teaching foundational content on sexual orientation and gender identity is illegal under state law."
Florida's Department of Education rejected the assertion that it had banned the course. The statement Friday from Diaz said the AP course can be taught "in a manner that is age and developmentally appropriate."
Here, I'll quote from the blog post, because you and several others apparently can't be bothered to actually read it:
"Florida officials told school superintendents Thursday that they may offer the class but only if material concerning sexual orientation and gender identity is removed," notes The Washington Post. "He said districts were encouraged to teach a modified version of the class."
Whoosh! (Again)
Not possible. Can't be taught. Kids aren't allowed to read it on their own, either.
Otherwise, that would be perfectly reasonable that an AP class, a college level class for high schoolers who voluntarily join and whose parents sign a waiver allowing them to take the class, could be taught.
Otherwise, this article by ENB would be rather hyperbolic. Edging on completely wrong, or possibly a lie about what this law (which she actually used the term "Don't say gay" for in the article) really says.
Reason's esteemed editors wouldn't like about a thing like that, would they?
One wonders how Reason doesn’t understand what a tell calling it the don’t say gay bill is.
I like how this chick said "which opponents dubbed the Don't Say Gay scheme". Subtle weasel-words bullshit so she can say "I didn't say it. Some opponents did." And "scheme" instead of bill or law, because you can read the text of it and never once find the word "gay".
She knows what she's doing. Thinks she's clever about it, but she's not fooling anyone but herself.
This chick is overtly hostile to her readership. I really don't know why she bothers to work at this magazine. Shouldn't she be writing somewhere progressive?
Psychology is bullshit anyway. just warmed over marxism. AP classes should be in calculus, physics, chemistry, biology and history/economics. Psych is a useless major.
‘The banks are out of control’
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/08/04/the-banks-are-out-of-control/
The Nigel Farage ‘debanking’ scandal has rocked the banking sector. Since the former Brexit Party leader revealed that his bank accounts had been closed for political reasons, the heads of Coutts and NatWest have been forced to resign. The UK government has intervened as well, drawing up new rules to make it harder for banks to close customers’ accounts because of their views. But Farage insists the battle is not over. The banks are now deeply politicised, he says, and the scale of the ‘debanking’ phenomenon is far greater than many realise. Nothing short of a major cultural change, he argues, will stop the banks from trying to impose their worldview on everyone else.
Nigel Farage: I had been a customer of Coutts since 2014. There was always a healthy income going into my accounts and I maintained a positive cash balance. I had even taken out a mortgage there and paid it back early. I didn’t think there was a problem. There had never been a problem before.
Out of the blue, I got appointed a new account manager. He didn’t speak to me for months, despite me asking to talk to him. Then I got a phone call from Coutts to tell me my accounts would be closed. I was shocked. I asked if it was to do with my status as a ‘politically exposed person’ (PEP) and I was told everything would be explained in a letter. That letter came two or three days later, simply saying that my accounts were being closed. It gave no explanation whatsoever.
I tried to talk to other banks, but they said they couldn’t do business with me. As a PEP, the cost of compliance was just too high. I became very concerned. To be honest, I was quite down about it. I felt that I couldn’t go public with this, because it was so humiliating. I was concerned it would be taken by my enemies as a victory against me.
Then I started doing a bit more research and found that it wasn’t just me this was happening to. An awful lot of people have had their accounts closed without explanation. In fact, it was happening to thousands of people. I realised that somebody had to blow the lid off this.
I decided my fight against debanking would have to be public. I want other people to come out and talk about their own experiences. I want to get a handle on the scale of this problem.
That was really when the avalanche began. I say avalanche, because I have never received so many messages before. These are exasperated, scared, confused people. People who risk losing their incomes, their homes and their businesses because of the way banks have behaved.
Quicktown brix is cool with the Nigel Farage debanking.
I brought that up in the hospital response lol.
Quicktown brix is cool with the Nigel Farage debanking.
I am? I haven't heard about this before now, so it's interesting to learn how I feel about it.
Well, I think if a private bank is debanking, I guess I am. If the bank is debanking at the request of the government, I'm not. Right now, I'm not educated enough to know the actual situation in this case, so I'll have to take your word for it.
It's not, it's a state-funded bank.
Somewhat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coutts
It is definitely regulated by the government which is Italian fascism when used to determine who allowable customers are.
Are you fine with programs like ESG where part of the rating is government compliance?
No
The fact is that in certain industries, like hospitals and banks, the government is a strict gatekeeper to entry. If we had a true free market I would agree with you that they could refuse to do business with anyone they choose, but we don’t.
Here’s just one of many examples of such government control:
https://www.ncsl.org/health/certificate-of-need-state-laws
You are right. We don't have a true free market, but 2 wrongs don't make a right either. When I see a gray area in my principles, I favor the side not having compulsary actions required by the government.
A weird story about “Bronze Age Pervert” and the weird world of “conservative masculinity influencers”.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-behind-bronze-age-pervert-110000528.html
"Their number is hard to gauge, though BAP today boasts more than 100,000 followers on Twitter."
Just 400,000 more and he'll make it into the top 1 million.
You guys are hilarious.
I like how the media tries to do it’s own LibsOfTikTok, but with “serious news” articles.
Oh, except without being doxxed or banned from social media. You know, without those consequences.
Who the blue hell is BAP?
He’s about to conquer the USA.
LOL, it used to stand for "Black American Princess" 25 years ago. There was even a dumb movie with that acronym released during the time starring Peak Halle Berry.
Did she get naked in it?
Sadly, no. But she still looks fucking amazing regardless.
Conservative Twitter is evidently too mainstream, so Jeffy has to look for people nobody has heard of.
To be fair to Jeff, it was like media matters that did the finding. He just repeats it blindly.
Yeah, if it's one thing that chemtard radical deathfat would be triggered by, it's the idea that exercise is something that's beneficial to your well-being.
While I don't think anyone has to be "swoled" or "'Roid-ed up" to be strong, having just recently got out of the hospital for Rhabdomyolytis, I think anyone who disses modern, rational, evidence-based medicine, exercise, nutrition, and fitness is damned suicidal.
And influencing others to diss these values is just taking others on the ride on the crazy train.
I am not what is called a "Health Nazi," but rather a Health Partizan. I struggle to aim for health for my own selfish--dare I say Individualist-- Libertarian benefit and I am now learning ways to do it better.
Anything worth doing, including living free and happy, is worth doing healthier and longer...forever if you can get away with it.
🙂
😉
Using heat to sell “climate change emergency”.
https://www.thecentersquare.com/opinion/article_634267f0-3230-11ee-8ba0-0fa57aa4c1fe.html
The Los Angeles Times embarrassed itself Sunday publishing an editorial presenting unsubstantiated climate myths while trying to put a hit on a recent, factual Fox News article. The op-ed, “Dying from the heat is not a political statement” by Times columnist Robin Abcarian, is a master class on how to ignore facts while presenting propaganda.
Abcarian’s editorial begins by telling the urban myth that, “This month looks to be the hottest ever on record for the entire planet.” However, scientists have long documented, and even the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has acknowledged, that temperatures were warmer 1,000 years ago during the Medieval Warm Period, 2,000 years ago during the Roman Warm Period, 6,000 years ago during the Holocene Climate Optimum, and indeed during most of the time period for which human civilization has existed. Moreover, scientists know temperatures were warmer than today during the vast majority of the planet’s existence.
Since 1998, NASA has been using satellite instruments to precisely measure the world’s total acreage burned by wildfires. NASA’s website reports a relatively steady and consistent decline in global wildfires since 1998. Meanwhile, since 1998, there has been a 24 percent decline in lands burned by wildfires.
The significant decline in wildfires since 1998 continues a trend that has been occurring throughout the era of modest global warming. In the peer-reviewed Journal of Geophysical Research, scientists report, “a notable declining rate of burned area globally” during the period from 1901 to 2007.
Abcarian concludes her article with anecdotes of a few unfortunate people who recently died after spending time hiking in the desert heat. Even if we could blame climate change for people dying after hiking in the desert during summer, the facts show global warming saves far more lives – likely millions worldwide each year – than are lost due to climate change. A study in the peer-reviewed medical journal Lancet reports 20 times more people globally die from cold than from heat. The same holds true in the United States, where the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report more than twice as many people die in the United States from exposure to excessive cold than the number who die from exposure to excessive heat.
Dying from heat is not a political statement. The Los Angeles Times presenting false climate narratives, however, is.
The Chron has been giving the heat wave some coverage, and you can bet every pro-narrative outlet has been searching for some deaths 'associated with' the heat (like those 'associated with' wu-flu). Nope.
Further, calling a "month" the hottest, coldest whatever is cherry-picking at its finest; give the me stats from, oh, mid June to Mid July.
Yes, we are still coming out of a mini-ice age, and humans will thrive as it continues to warm.
A book on the Black Plague mentioned it happened as the earth was cooling and reducing the overall welfare of the population; humanity does better when the earth is warmer.
You have to go back a couple of decades to the start of it with the Great Famine of 1315-1317, in which crops failed due to the weather turning wet and cool. That seems to be near the start of the Little Ice Age and the end of the Medieval Climatic Optimum. The Black Plague (late 1340s-early 1350s) hit a population already reeling from the effects of this cool and wetter period. Between the Great Famine and the Black Plague, Europe is estimated to have lost about half its population.
If only they'd stayed 6 feet apart and voted in drop boxes.
“and humans will thrive as it continues to warm.”
As long as the assholes trying to set the thermostat are held at bay.
I’m not hopeful.
I was in Athens a few weeks ago when the news was apoplectic about wild fires and heatwaves. Asking a lot of the people about it, they just shrugged. There are fires all the time in summer, and half the tourists getting turned away mid day from the archaeological sites travelled half the world from countries that are hotter than Greece.
Sky news has already come out saying they were mostly man made. From the couple of fires we drove by, I doubt anyone was camping out there. Just sayin.
This month looks to be the hottest ever on record for the entire planet.
The tell is that this is not technically inaccurate - just the detail that consistently gets left out is that 'entire planet' temperature records only go back about 40 years.
"hottest ever on record for the entire planet" = true
"hottest ever for the entire planet" = wildly, wildly untrue
Apparently these people totally forgot the cold, wet winter six months before.
There was snow at the bottom of Cajon Pass, near Devore. I personally witnessed it.
Believing this bullshit requires denying history.
That same week, we were hit with a number of articles claiming the Gulf Stream (I forget the full scientific name) system is in imminent danger of collapse, which will cause temperatures in Europe to plummet, as it is only the warm waters of the Gulf Stream that keep Europe warmer than Canada.
Illinois's continued violations of 2A.
https://www.thecentersquare.com/illinois/article_9ed97a1c-3170-11ee-8990-13cb0a113a64.html
A memo circulating online confirmed to The Center Square by Illinois State Police said additional requirements of Illinois’ Protect Illinois Communities Act, the state’s ban on certain semi-automatic firearms and magazines, require people with not just the banned firearms, but “assault weapons attachments,” to “have provided an endorsement affidavit signed under oath to the ISP no later than Jan. 1, 2024.” Noncompliance could lead to criminal penalties.
Gun rights advocate Todd Vandermyde said registering parts is unworkable.
“This part will work on a shotgun that’s legal. It will work on an AR over here that’s illegal,” Vandermyde said. “How do you delineate that?”
State police are set to open the portal for registration beginning Oct. 1, with a Jan. 1 deadline to file an affidavit. Vandermyde questioned the ability for ISP to manage such a system.
“We know how good they are at websites. Just look at the disaster that is the [Federal Firearms Licensees] website,” he said.
Adding to the concern could be that in August 2021, hackers attempted to breach the ISP Firearm Owners ID database, possibly exposing more than 2,000 individuals’ private information.
"Everything Appears To Be A Cover Up"
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/everything-appears-be-cover-capitol-police-chief-challenged-j6-narrative-never-aired
In never-before-seen footage that was withheld by Fox News, former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund told former Fox News host Tucker Carlson that January 6th was a complete debacle and a "cover up."
"Everything appears to be a cover up," Sund tells Carlson in footage obtained by the National Pulse. "Like I said, I’m not a conspiracy theorist," he continued. "…but when you look at the information and intelligence they had, the military had, it’s all watered down. I’m not getting intelligence, I’m denied any support from National Guard in advance. I’m denied National Guard while we’re under attack, for 71 minutes…"
Beginning around 19 minutes into the conversation, Sund tells Tucker: "If I was allowed to do my job as the chief we wouldn’t be here, this didn’t have to happen," adding that he's "pissed off" about being "lambasted in public" over what happened that day.
Who the fuck is taking AP Psychology?
Everyone who wants to gain admittance to a gender studies course?
Which high school teacher is qualified to teach AP Psych?
I dunno. One who got a Psychology degree and then got a teaching credential?
Why would such an individual give up higher pay as a therapist or college professor to work in a high school, Laursen?
Access to kids.
Don't we typically call such behavior, "grooming"?
How many high school teachers have a degree in their field and not just an education master? Legit question.
More realistic question: How many high school teachers simply took a basic reading/writing test to get an emergency credential?
Education majors tend to have the lowest test scores entering college, and then are coddled with "easy A's".
CBS News:
Slackers wanting to earn the country's easiest college major, should major in education.
It's easy to get "A's" if you're an education major. Maybe that's why one out of 10 college graduates major in education.
Research over the years has indicated that education majors, who enter college with the lowest average SAT scores, leave with the highest grades. Some of academic evidence documenting easy A's for future teachers goes back more than 50 years!
The latest damning report on the ease of majoring in education comes from research at the University of Missouri, my alma mater. The study, conducted by economist Cory Koedel shows that education majors receive "substantially higher" grades than students in every other department.
Puff GPA's
Koedel examined the grades earned by undergraduates during the 2007-2008 school year at three large state universities that include sizable education programs -- University of Missouri, Miami (OH) University and Indiana University. The researcher compared the grades earned by education majors with the grades earned by students in 12 other majors including biology, economics, English, history, philosophy, mathematics, chemistry, psychology and sociology.
Education majors enjoyed grade point averages that were .5 to .8 grade points higher than students in the other college majors. At the University of Missouri, for instance, the average education major has a 3.80 GPA versus 2.99 GPA (science, math, econ majors), 3.12 GPA (social science majors) and 3.16 GPA (humanities majors).
Consequences of Easy Grades for Education Majors
Why should we care if education majors, who must survive classes like "kiddie lit," coast through school?
For starters, easy grading can prompt students to slack off. If you can earn an "A" with little effort why exert yourself? What's more, if most students are getting A's then how can employers distinguish the future teaching stars from the academic slugs?
Koedel also suggests that the low academic standards required of education majors can extend to low expectation of teachers after they leave college.
Low grading standards in education departments may contribute to the culture of low evaluation standards in education more generally. Although the existence of such a link is merely speculative at this point, there is a striking similarity between the favorable grades awarded to prospective teachers during university training and the favorable evaluations that teachers receive in K-12 schools.
It sounds like the only ones who are flunking these days are the education professors, who are handing out all these easy A's. These profs should spend time with teachers in departments like chemistry and economics to see how real grading works.
One of my roommates in college was an education major. It's not a rigorous line of study. I'll illustrate with an example. I was an architecture student, so was one of my other roommates. The other was an engineering student.
One night, my architecture buddy and I decided to leave our studio at about 9pm after working over 12 hours straight on a project, so that we could get home, make some sandwiches, and study for our structural dynamics exam the next morning.
Our Ed major roommate was having a study group in the living room that apparently consisted of a pajama party, Spongebob on the TV, and creating simulated 'lesson plans' on white cardpaper boards with Crayola markers. And a lot of Doritos. They had apparently been 'working' on this for several hours.
We both kind of rolled our eyes, made our sandwiches, and went upstairs to work on bending moment calculations.
I'm not even sure that the engineer came home that night.
In college, I took every psych elective hoping to learn something. I did: psych is pseudoscience bullshit...(oh and words starting with ps are smarty sounding.)
AP classes are high school.
What makes you think QB doesn’t know what an AP class is?
Caw caw!
Yes, thank you.
Expecially the show psych
girls that are absolutely sure that the boyfriend who dumped them was a narcissist.
I dunno. High school kids who are considering majoring in Psychology when they go to college.
Do they major in turducken and HO2 as well?
Who the fuck is taking AP Psychology?
Those who find a major in Communications too challenging?
Reminds me of a girl who was in my freshman Computer Science class. She dropped Computer Science for Civil Engineering, then dropped Civil Engineering for Psychology, then the last time I ran into her she was a full-time ski bum working at REI.
Why were you stalking her?
when i took psych 101 in college we didn't have 57 genders
Was drapetomania still considered a mental illness?
females
Who the fuck is taking AP Psychology?
Kindergarteners apparently.
This does not exist except in theory.
emotional women likely who will get a BA in same, work for some govt agency, never marry, have 10 cats and hate all men because they can't get one..and always vote democrat
10 across 13 letters, cheer showing the upmost "respect" for current commander in chief.
Unfortunately 'FUCKJOEBIDEN' is only 12 letters, so I have no idea.
'HAILTOTHECHIEF' is 14. We're screwed.
"FUCKJOERBIDEN". There, you have 13 letters.
Letsgobrandon
That's it.
"The Florida Department of Education has effectively banned AP Psychology in the state by instructing Florida superintendents that teaching foundational content on sexual orientation and gender identity is illegal under state law," states the College Board.
The college board is clearly lying again.
The law allows teaching the full context of the AP course as long as the parents can opt out. And since you have to request an AP course (last time I looked), it meets the opt out exception.
I am shocked, shocked, that a fascist organization would lie about a Florida law.
Do you have a cite that counters The Washington Post’s reporting on the state board’s ruling?
You mean OUTSIDE of the law itself?
What has WaPo done to justify just assuming they are correct? They parroted "Don't Say Gay" when the bill had nothing to do with that whatsoever.
Did you actually read anything?
Anyway, I’m going to ignore your uninformative comment and hope Longtobefree responds.
Feel free to look up the law.
Narrator: But in the end, Mike Liarson never looked at the primary source.
What the liberal narrative is is the most important thing.
The law is ridiculously vague and overly broad. It was carefully written to allow precisely this kind of abuse. Critics pointed this out at the time, and every subsequent development has proven them right. Even the most innocuous statute can often be twisted to serve perverse ends. The only difference is that this one was intended to do so from the beginning.
In Florida it is against the law to feed wildlife, including trolls, but I will chance it.
https://reason.com/2023/08/04/florida-effectively-banned-ap-psychology-with-rules-against-teaching-about-gender-sexual-orientation/
Now read the article, which explains the opt out provisions. I wouldn't want to bore you with the text of the actual law, but it is available if you search long enough.
It also references a Washington Post article, reporting on the state board’s ruling on the matter. Why do you leave that part out?
Because the Washington Post is a fascist propaganda rag.
Please provide a cite showing that The Washington Post's reporting is incorrect.
He. Just. Won’t. Read. Primary. Sources.
Well it's not like he could derail the thread with a ridiculous amount of ignorance if he educated himself.
I though they were a Marxist propaganda rag. I'm so confused!
(Disclaimer: I am not actually confused. I am well aware that most people have no idea what either "Marxist" or "fascist" actually mean. Both words have been so widely used and abused that at this point their only real meaning is "anything I don't like". Once language is devalued like this communication rapidly becomes impossible. Opposing sides are basically just making random noises at each other.)
In L.A. County recently, a large number of people were peacefully protesting the government’s arbitrary commands that people get vaccinated and wear masks and other orders supposedly to stem the advance of COVID, largely on the grounds that the governments orders violated their individual rights. The “Choose Freedom March” organized to protest the “medical tyranny” of mandatory vaccinations and vaccine passports (your papers please!).
Antifa activists attacked the protesters–the counter-protest called itself “No Safe Space for Fascists” to demonstrate against what organizers called “violent anti-vaxxers.”
The people peacefully protesting about government force are “fascists”? And the self-selected blackshirts attacking people (in support of the governments force) claim to be anti-fascist?
What the hell do opt out provisions have to do with shutting down classes that are explicitly opt-in? Hint: zero, jack, nada, bupkis, nil and nothing.
It is slightly ironic that in her links, ENB neglected to include a link to the law itself.
Not exactly ironic. She's pushing her agenda, and a link to the law itself might just contradict her agenda.
Yeah, not really ironic that a propagandist is just pushing propaganda.
Yes, because the language of the law and its application are exactly the same thing. Even vague and over broad laws filled with weasel words and deliberately written to enable abuse.
And yet now this proves the "don't say gay" crowd utterly correct. The censors claim they only want to prevent "inappropriate" discussions. But if an AP psych class isn't an appropriate place to discuss sexual orientation, then where the hell is? They're telling schools to teach the class without any mention of sexual orientation or gender identity, despite the fact that these classes are typically taken only by outstanding and mature students and are the very definition of opt-in. They bleat about allowing parents to control their children's education, but every new development proves what they really want is to let the most extreme and reactionary control every child's education. They chant "Freedom!" but don't hesitate for a second to deny freedom to anyone who makes choices they don't like.
None of these laws are about "parental rights" or "protecting children". They're an ever more obvious effort to stuff any and all queer people back into the closet. Denying this until you're blue in the face doesn't change that reality.
An AP Psych class does seem like a good place to discuss mental illness. Like rapid onset gender dysphoria.
How about this very article. The law bans teaching sex and gender nonsense up to 3rd grade, and grades above unless it is “age appropriate”. One attention seeking douchebag says that applies to AP Psych, the law doesn’t say that.
Now stfu, everyone knows you will repeatedly cite the falsehood anyway
This article – Lawmakers left it open to the Florida Board of Education to decide what the latter part (age-appropriate) meant—and the Board decided earlier this year that it meant most discussion of gender or sexual orientation was off limits for students up through grade 12, too.
Here’s the statement from College Board about why it is telling Florida school districts not to offer AP Psychology.
They are not going to submit to Florida’s political extortion about what AP coursework is going to be. College Board owns that. Has spent decades creating the AP curricula and making sure that it is rigorous enough to get college credit. I am certain they know EXACTLY why teaching the AP psychology course will either violate state law or it will violate college credit requirements.
Fuck you Florida. And fuck all you ‘libertarians’ who are crawling up said governors asshole to munch on his dingleberries. You Mises crowd are repellent.
There’s no reason whatsoever to default to the pretenses of these places anymore. An institution doesn’t need to be respected as a sacred authority simply because it exists. That was how the radical left took over these places to begin with.
No, fuck the radical left seminaries that think they have a right in perpetuity to determine and institutionalize what the nation’s culture is going to be without any pushback on that whatsoever. And fuck the “libertarians” who are crawling up the radical left’s asshole to munch on their dingleberries. The Colorado NEA's educational standards are explicitly endorsing Marxism now, and I certainly don't remember you complaining about that.
I doubt anything even in proximity to what you say has any element of truth to it.
And like everyone else here you won't even provide evidence.
Lol. What credibility do you think you have chicken little?
And like everyone else here you won’t even provide evidence.
LOL, probably because when I do provide actual references, the standard response is, "who cares? I don't have time to read that and I'm not interested."
But just for you, you ignorant sack of shit, feel free to google the following statement. Lots of references out there for ya:
"CEA believes that capitalism requires exploitation of children, public schools, land, labor, and/or resources. Capitalism is in opposition to fully addressing systemic racism (the school to prison pipeline), climate change, patriarchy, (gender and LGBTQ disparities), education inequality, and income inequality."
Ok that statement is cited verbatim by all the mouth breather sources on the same day May 4/5. The ones you and your ilk regularly cite as ‘evidence’ of something. Some of them say ‘reportedly passed’. There was another round of outrage on May 22 – when Fox News apparently didn’t get a reaction re that earlier round from the White House, the federal DoE, or the NEA. Probably not the UN or the EU or the World Wildlife Fund or Save the Children either. Which, sure, could be proof that they are all conspiring to cover it up. Or maybe it’s evidence that nothing actually happened and irrelevant institutions don’t respond to media trolls.
There has not been any mention since then. Hmm. Not about the resolution. But more important, nothing re any protest from teachers – from parents – from any school district – from any candidate looking to run for school board in some district. The Colorado GOP doesn’t mention any of that on their ‘take action’ page? Is everyone in Colorado part of the cover up as well?
I call bullshit.
And BTW I suspect you know that it's bullshit too. Since you wanted me to google some long constipated quote rather than an actual link to any original credible source.
Because I knew you'd whine about the source, you waste of carbon molecules.
Hopefully a tranq addict knocks your dumb ass out on the 16th Street Mall.
So you can't actually refute that the statement is accurate. Thanks for conceding the point.
By the way, the guy who crafted that statement, Bryan Lindstrom? A marxist. Which is pretty fucking obvious when you read his social media accounts, as he's run for the Aurora City Council several times and even got my commie cousin's vote.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/colorado-teachers-union-passes-resolution-declaring-capitalism-inherently-exploits-children-public-schools
I can find more if you like.
That's right. The College Board and some dude on Facebook both ought to have equal weight to decide what should be taught in school.
Who said "some dude on Facebook", dude? Got a cite and a link for that assertion, Jeffy?
I suspect the main reason he gets so defensive about the value of "experts" is that his college degree is the only real validation of his worth that he's ever gotten in his life, and anything that smacks of anti-managerialism gets his almonds activated.
I figured his visceral reaction to anything that tells teachers they are in fact state employees and have to answer to parents concerns, put him as a teacher or teacher adjacent.
He’s a fat groomer so that makes sense.
It would make sense. He said he lives in a red area and his neighbors are a perpetual source of social consternation to him because apparently they don't hate their community and like living there.
The College Board has even less credibility than you do, fat boy, and that's saying something.
The exact text of the law may not say that. It does empower the Florida Board of Education to say that, and they did. How on earth self-proclaimed libertarians find it difficult to realize that "the law" and the application of that law might not be exactly the same thing boggles my mind.
NPR:
In its statement Thursday, the College Board said DeSantis' administration "has effectively banned AP Psychology in the state by instructing Florida superintendents that teaching foundational content on sexual orientation and gender identity is illegal under state law."
Florida's Department of Education rejected the assertion that it had banned the course. The statement Friday from Diaz said the AP course can be taught "in a manner that is age and developmentally appropriate."
In a letter to state superintendents, Florida Education Commissioner Manny Diaz Jr. said the state believed the psychology course could be taught "in its entirety."
The College Board said it hoped Florida teachers now will be able "to teach the full course, including content on gender and sexual orientation, without fear of punishment in the upcoming school year."
Spent 10s of millions of dollars on astroturf faggots like this.
Worst campaign in American political history.
https://twitter.com/TruthTalker1101/status/1687297361276534784?t=wyKYAvWSx7k_P3cGC8g8yw&s=19
DeSantis is playing the long game. He understands how crucial these early months are and while Donald trump is in and out of court, spending millions and millions of dollars, screaming at the top of his lungs day in and day out on his failing social media app, DeSantis is laying the ground work for what will be remembered as the most successful ground game primary campaign in modern American politics. DeSantis and the team aren’t afraid of the hard work that is required and it will undoubtedly play a crucial roll in early states. Genius stuff coming from the DeSantis campaign. I wouldn’t expect anything less.
[Link]
"American Democracy Will Pay A Terrible Price"
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/stockman-warns-american-democracy-will-pay-terrible-price-jack-smiths-insouciance
That’s truly the gravamen of this 45 page abomination. It has nothing to do with justice or the rule of law or the protection of Democracy, and everything to do with triggering a trial clock in the DC District Court that will result in a guaranteed guilty verdict before November 5, 2024.
And should that succeed, no incumbent party will ever again go into a presidential election without mobilizing the machinery of the DOJ to its partisan advantage. After all, this is the ultimate weaponization of the judicial branch of American government by the Incumbent Party—an attempt to cancel an election via “preventive detention” of the leading candidate of the Opposition.
For crying out loud. The criminal prosecution of an ex-president and current election front-runner entails a super-duper heavy burden of proof, not just enough plausibility to get a Mafia don into court. To the contrary, it needs be predicated upon a damn serious “high crime” and provable criminal actions by the target that actively threatened America’s national security or core democratic processes.
At the end of the day the bomb that got dropped on American democracy last night by the beltway puppeteers who stage-manage Joe Biden is just a lengthy catalogue of all the advice that Trump rejected—advice that said he was wrong about whether there was sufficient fraud to alter the outcome of the election.
In truth, this action by the weaponized Biden Justice Department amounts to a present day variation of the aphorism immortalized by Stalin’s security chief, Levrenti Beria:
“Show me Donald Trump and I’ll show you the crime”.
Prosecutor Smith has done exactly that now for the second time in as many months. And American democracy will pay a terrible price for such insouciance for a long time to come.
Here is Glenn Greenwald.
https://rumble.com/v345ij1-system-update-123.html
I took two years psychology in college in the early 2000s. Gender indenity nor sexual orientation were never mentioned. Twenty years earlier, if they were mentioned it would have been called gender dysphoria and universally accepted has a mental health illness. It really is not a pivitol or foundational topic to the field. Now, it is being taught by choice, as a way to shift the zeitgeist for cultral acceptance of those behaviors. We used to call that indoctrination, not education.
When I read the word "essentially" in the headline, I immediately suspected gaslighting by activists.
Given what's being taught about gender identity in elementary schools, how professional therapists have talked about how drastically their industry has changed on this topic since 2015, how many in the mental health field report that if they DON'T teach that gender is non-binary or get sanctioned by industry boards, I don't believe that this shit has been taught "for 30 years".
They've been gaslighting for more than 30 yrs. from the removal of "sexual orientation disturbance" on pretty much exactly "Don't Say Gay" grounds to the inclusion/exclusion of autoandrophilia on the grounds of avoiding feminist ire/lack of longitudinal evidence. Even Money and all the evidence back to Kinsey, It's gaslighting all the way to bedrock.
Homosexuality was also taught as a mental illness, and a criminal one at that.
They should go back to teaching that and then we can watch the media defend their right to continue to do so.
one is a sexual preference. The other is denying reality. I would say the latter is mental illness. Evolution affirms your gender..if you don't accept it, fine dress up like the opposite sex or have immitation surgery but you can never be the other sex. And leave kids alone.
"It's for the children!" The eternal battle cry of slavers and hysterics. They know that any mention of children will get people to turn off all logic and critical thinking and instead accept assaults on their wallet, their freedoms or both.
Don't forget drapetomania.
It’s still called gender dysphoria by the way. But instead of calling it mental illness like homosexuality once was, it’s accepted like homosexuality now is.
Homosexuality =/= gender dysphoria.
I never said that. Stop gaslighting.
You keep using that term. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Sarc’s kinda retarded.
Heavy alcohol use does have a tendency to damage the liver and brain cells.
He thinks it means igniting farts.
Lol.
Gender dysphoria has been accepted for a very long time now, and it’s NOT “accepted like homosexuality” because homosexuality isn’t an “acute psychosis”– even it if was thought to be one 70 years ago.
Edit: And the predictable seal-clapping response is: Yeah man, and maybe they’re progressing to where gender Dysphoria isn’t one either.
Good, then why does it require medical intervention to "maintain" whereas homosexuality doesn't?
Do you know what "acute" means?
Yes, alcohol poisoning can be either acute or chronic. For example:
"Sarc suffered acute alcohol poisoning due to drinking too many high-proof drinks in a row." Versus:
"Sarc is suffering chronic alcohol poisoning due to drinking heavily daily."
By the way, you're taking extreme outliers and acting as if they are the norm. That's a dishonest tactic I expect from the left. I thought conservatives were above such things. I was wrong.
Man, sarc has even adopted the lefts common use of concern trolling.
By the way, you’re taking extreme outliers and acting as if they are the norm.
LOL, the left has made no secret at all that they want to mainstream this shit. For fuck's sake, it's being promoted by the current administration to the point they commissioned a tranny in the Public Health Service Corps, and hired a "non-binary" domination fetishist and women's clothing kleptomaniac to help run the country's nuclear program.
These aren't outliers; the left is openly trying to normalize this shit.
Yes the whole non-binary crap is being pushed onto everyone. I was referring to medical intervention. That’s the outlier.
Gender dysphoria effects less than one percent of the population, and only a small percentage of those people seek medical intervention.
The actual numbers are very small.
Gender dysphoria effects less than one percent of the population, and only a small percentage of those people seek medical intervention.
The actual numbers are very small.
I heard the same thing 20 years ago when the center-right handwaved away how radical the universities were becoming. "Oh, don't worry, this is just a small number of loud people, just wait until they get to the real world!" History shows that if you don't confront his shit from the start and nip it in the bud, it metastasizes and becomes the conventional wisdom later on. The increase in social phenomena like Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, the normalization of it in the medical field, and the very blatant activism of left-wing radicals to encourage minors and tweens/teens going through puberty to question their own biology as an exercise in "liberation" means that it can't simply be dismissed as a minor issue that isn't worth engaging.
History shows that if you don’t confront his shit from the start and nip it in the bud, it metastasizes and becomes the conventional wisdom later on.
Today “Oh no they’re saying gender fluidity is ok!”
20 years ago “Oh no they’re saying it’s ok to be gay!”
20 years before that “Oh no they’re teaching sex in schools!”
20 years before that “Oh no black kids and white kids are playing together!”
20 years from now this will be normal and people will be freaking out about something else.
I’m not too worried about it.
So, you think male can become female and female become male? We're not certain species of fish, dude. This shit will never be normal.
I never said my thoughts on the matter. Though I’m sure you’ll tell me what they are and then call me a liar when I disagree.
sarcasmic 32 mins ago (edited)
20 years from now this will be normal and people will be freaking out about something else.
I replied that this will never be normal and asked a question.
I replied that this will never be normal and asked a question.
No you didn't. You deliberately misconstrued what they are saying and then tried to get me to commit to your false premise. Not playing your troll games.
sarcasmic 49 mins ago (edited)
RRWP: "History shows that if you don’t confront his shit from the start and nip it in the bud, it metastasizes and becomes the conventional wisdom later on."
Today “Oh no they’re saying gender fluidity is ok!”
[Skip over comparisons.]
20 years from now this will be normal and people will be freaking out about something else.
I’m not too worried about it.
That is what you said. How the fuck is this a “troll game”?
Apparently sarc has his Friday night scene started early, forgetting what he said less than an hour earlier.
Don’t worry sarc, I’ve got the afternoon off so I’ll be joining in shortly, although I still won’t forget the things I’ve said.
"It's happening, and fuck you for caring."
Sun Tzu cautioned against engaging in conflict you can't win.
So why did these freaks start this conflict?
So why did these freaks start this conflict?
In fairness, I think the freaks would prefer to be left alone. I've seen little evidence that they actually asked to be the subject of the latest Progressive crusade, and it's likely to turn out poorly for them in the end.
In which sarc says fighting change is hopeless.
I'll give you credit here, though. It is perfectly consistent with your nihilism on voting.
denying reality and forcing society to accept your denial and allow you to coax kids to mutilate themselves because you want your mental illness to be accepted and celebrated is sick. Just fing sick.
Evolution affirms your gender. This issue is not like getting rid of Jim Crow laws or allowing divorce.
The screechers turn this into something of a catch-22. On the one hand, there are so few that we shouldn't bother making any accommodation whatsoever, but on the other hand if we make any accommodation we'll soon be overrun by the hordes.
nevermind
Any efforts to try to rationally explore the concept of gender dysphoria as a mental illness are met with shrill "transphobic" attacks. Witness the research track into so-called "rapid onset gender dysphoria" seemingly affecting, disproportionally, progressive teenage girls with social media presence.
I took Psych 101 in 2010 or '11 in California.
Gender identity and sexual orientation were still not mentioned. Weird.
Come on, we know CA wouldn't teach that kind of stuff...
You took two years of Psychology in college (in any era) and homosexuality was never discussed, ever? May I ask where you went to college?
Here’s the kind of gender identity stuff they teach in schools to small children (I know this isn’t the subject of the post). Video cut at the relevant time. Listen to this utterly insane shit that’s going on in schools with small children
(About 2-3 minutes).
Nick Gillespie: Hey man, like, what are the stakes?
as Malcolm X said, only a fool would let his enemies educate his children.
chemtard: "Yeah? Well, why do you have to be such a square, maaaaaaaaaaaaan?"
Damning, but the MSM will try to sweep it under the rug anyway.
https://nypost.com/2023/08/03/number-of-joe-bidens-sitdowns-with-hunter-biden-clients-is-damning/
With the transcript of Devon Archer’s testimony released, New York Rep. Dan Goldman stands exposed as shamelessly deceptive in his claims that Archer’s account mainly cleared President Joe Biden of any wrongdoing in connection to son Hunter’s lucrative influence-peddling.
Among the revelations:
Between meetings and phone calls, then-Veep Joe chatted repeatedly — 20 times, to Archer’s knowledge — with Hunter and his overseas clients, usually for periods longer than the cup-of-coffee or just-a-handshake that Joe’s defenders have claimed.
Notably, Archer debunked the pro-Biden lie that Joe barely stopped by an April 2015 dinner with a pack of Hunter clients.
Goldman cited a 2021 Washington Post piece claiming that Joe spoke only with a priest there.
“No,” Archer replied: It was actually “a regular dinner” and “that’s not correct reporting.”
With his decades of foreign-policy experience, Joe surely knew that all these foreigners hailed from countries where a politician’s son selling dad’s influence is typical.
The only reason to do it time and again was to help Hunter collect.
Why else keep breaking bread with a pack of corruptocrats far below the level a vice president would?
And why else keep the meetings off Joe’s official schedule?
“He was aware of Hunter’s business. He met with Hunter’s business partners.”
Nor was it just these 20 Joe sitdowns: Tony Bobulinski, Hunter’s partner in a different outfit, testifies to more of them.
As Miranda Devine notes, all this not only exposes Goldman’s false spin, it makes a mockery of Joe’s “nearly three-year litany of lies” about being completely ignorant of Hunter’s dealings.
Joe was just asking them about the weather and how his sons dick pics looked.
I also loved seeing his defenders parrot the line "illusion of access" which was in a question asked by Goldman but not said by Archer or anybody else.
Even giving the illusion of access is still influence peddling.
Every illusion I've seen where someone interjects even meaningless banter in the middle of the illusion, the interlocutor is either referred to as "My Lovely Assistant" or "A Willing Volunteer (who is frequently/notoriously planted)".
Yeah, "weather" they had his fucking money ready.
Republicans continue to bat zero on the Hunter Biden probe. But I am sure the next witness will turn that all around.
Cite, M4E?
They have;
- missing witnesses,
- the two whistle blowers were basically providing their opinion that the Biden case was not handled correctly, no real proof,
- the only undisputed fact on the released FBI FD-1023 form is the statement that "Hunter Biden is not smart",
- Lev Parnas, a Giuliani associate, sent the House Oversight committee a letter that there is no evidence of either Biden interfering in Ukrainian politics,
- Devon Archer basically cleared Joe Biden and confirmed that Hunter was trying to sell access that did not exist.
Please cite something that the committee actually has?
Links, M4e.
How you spin this for Biden, but have Trump's "walls closing in" narrative locked in, is so awesome. Thank you for always showing that the moderate position is to accept the status quo and never push back on the corrupt tyrannical rulers of our times.
Define batting zero? Please explain how Hunter is not guilty at a minimum of FARA. This should be enlightening.
Odd he is using the same fact free dodge Buttplug is using.
It must be in the ActBlue mass email this morning.
What’s it like, being a Democrat shill?
Are you just fully embracing that your username is ironic?
I have known that for quite some time.
I’ve suspected a parody for about a year now.
He seems to have gotten a lot worse in the last year or so.
Well, it gets harder to parody the ridiculous stances of American culture when the Overton window is going so far left we can barely see reality. (And only to discourse how terrible and unfair it is.)
"RFK Jr.'s Latest Tweet Is Being Widely Interpreted As A Nazi Dog Whistle"
You won't believe how.
If the establishment is giving him the full Trump treatment, they must be frightened of him.
Anti-semitism is problem for Democrats when not promulgated by The Squad.
This would seem to be squarely in tin-foil hat type conspiracy theories that pervade the Left.
He's got a following amongst Democrats who don't follow and don't like Joe "Burisma" Biden. That alone is enough to make then shit their underpants. We saw something similar with Bernie Sanders in 2015-16 when he ran against Hillary Clinton.
Holy shit, that is Farrakhan level numerology there.
They are frightened of him. Biden is tied with the Opposition Leader, despite having him arrested. RFK could prove to be a devastating spoiler even if he only takes a few percentage points off the top.
Time for some fortification!
If you add up all letters in David Moye's name you get 98 (A=1). 98 is the code for international direct dial phone calls to Iran. Iran's supreme leader had called for the Death of America and the extinction of the Jewish people. Why does David Moye hate America and want to kill all of the Jews?
Capital A is clearly 65.
So the guy who’s Dad got elected because he was a WWII hero is a secret Nazi?
These people are flat psychotic.
The real story with whether or not high school boys trend more conservative is about the paranoid response elite institutions have towards people who are politically conservative. This is always talked about as being dangerous in some fashion while young people being politically Left, even radically and violently so is not. The double standard is absurd.
Well, at least these absurdities won't turn into atrocities. I'm sure that left wing ideology having no standards will yield a good culture and lead to many people receiving affirming care of varying types.
Michael Shellenberger - Why Progressives Ruin Cities
An interesting talk on how the progressives are abusing the mentally ill and drug addicted to feel good about themselves and critique capitalism.
An enabler is a person who by their actions make it easier for an addict to continue their self-destructive behavior by rescuing the addict. The codependent party exhibits behavior that controls, makes excuses for, pities, and takes other actions to perpetuate the obviously needy party's condition, because of their desire to be needed and fear of doing anything that would change the relationship.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324688404578545523824389986
We don't think we'd ever heard of Oakland University, a second-tier institution in suburban Rochester, Mich., but Barbara Oakley, an associate professor in engineering, may help put the place on the map. Earlier this week Oakland's Oakley published a fascinating paper, "Concepts and Implications of Altruism Bias and Pathological Altruism," in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Oakley defines pathological altruism as "altruism in which attempts to promote the welfare of others instead result in unanticipated harm." A crucial qualification is that while the altruistic actor fails to anticipate the harm, "an external observer would conclude [that it] was reasonably foreseeable." Thus, she explains, if you offer to help a friend move, then accidentally break an expensive item, your altruism probably isn't pathological; whereas if your brother is addicted to painkillers and you help him obtain them, it is.
As the latter example suggests, the idea of "codependency" is a subset of pathological altruism. "Feelings of empathic caring . . . appear to lie at the core of . . . codependent behavior," Oakley notes. People in codependent relationships genuinely care for each other, but that empathy leads them to do destructive things.
Ostensibly well-meaning governmental policy promoted home ownership, a beneficial goal that stabilizes families and communities. The government-sponsored enterprises Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae allowed less-than-qualified individuals to receive housing loans and encouraged more-qualified borrowers to overextend themselves. Typical risk–reward considerations were marginalized because of implicit government support. The government used these agencies to promote social goals without acknowledging the risk or cost. When economic conditions faltered, many lost their homes or found themselves with properties worth far less than they originally had paid. Government policy then shifted . . . the cost of this "altruism" to the public, to pay off the too-big-to-fail banks then holding securitized subprime loans. . . . Altruistic intentions played a critical role in the development and unfolding of the housing bubble in the United States.
Florida 'Effectively Banned AP Psychology' With Rules Against Teaching About Gender, Sexual Orientation
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Oh no, not AP Psychology!
And I here I thought getting college credit for Italian in high school was the ultimate in bullshit classes.
Gave you a chance to hit on chicks with unshaven armpits and legs. So, that's a plus. I guess.
I got college credit for psychology in high school. Gender was not mentioned once. And that was within the last 30 years.
They shaved their legs and armpits.
The moustaches, on the other hand...
I saw the chicks you were hitting on the other day and they were ug-leee!
I get that the current gender ideaology and all that may not have been discussed — but do you mean to say that they never covered that there are males and females, and how their different hormones and social development affect their psychology?
They used the word "sex".
Not "Gender".
Gender is a term for language study.
Got it.
Don't kids learn everything they need to know about this stuff from Pornhub?
Good. The last thing we want is a students-to-government-jobs fund.
Two or three days ago, one of the right-wing commenters here posted a comment making an assumption the drones Ukraine are using to attack Moscow buildings are U.S. manufactured and/or provided by the U.S. When I asked for a cite to back up the assumption, I got crickets.
The "Beaver" drones are apparently manufactured in Ukraine:
https://www.kyivpost.com/post/20129
Are there any drones manufactured in the US?
Are you asking if the US manufactures any drones? Or if they US manufactures any drones that are used in Ukraine?
By the by:
/or provided by the U.S.
The answer to this is "yes". There is no Ukraine economy. It is entirely underwritten by US aid at this point.
You are stretching.
It is necessary to carefully stretch before leaping to conclucions, or you will strain something.
Not when you’re a bird.
So, we are underwriting Ukraine’s military effort against Russia. If Ukraine targets civilian apartments with military weapons, the US:
1. Ignores it 2. Condemns it 3. Tells Ukraine to knock it the fuck off. 4. Encourages more of it.
So far, I’m getting a #1 vibe. Your thoughts?
Edit: From the media, I'm kind of getting a #4 vibe. You know, that #Resistance, Antiwar, George W. Bush is a war-criminal media.
None of your arguments have addressed my actual comment: which so that Moscow was attacked with Ukrainian-manufactured “Beaver” drones.
Who provides citations for an assumption? Do you even know what assumption means?
Good ol' Liarson.
I love that you think it’s okay to call anyone you disagree with “Right-wing”, but get all hurt-hurt if anyone calls you a leftist or left sympathizer.
Where is Melania?
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/melania-trump-where-donald-indictment-latest-b2387622.html
Melania Trump has reportedly rejected multiple requests to appear alongside her husband, former president Donald Trump, at campaign stops and appearances as part of the multiple criminal cases against him in New York and Florida.
Your point?
Orange Man Bad.
Pretty standard for political wives to be standing next to their husbands in these cases. I will concede it is all a show, but nevertheless standard.
Unless she was miserable with how the press treated her 2016-2020 and sees no reason to subject herself to that again.
Because the press did treat her rather poorly.
Or she is thinking about how free she will be if the hubby is locked up. Could be either.
More of that moderation there?
M4e must be a "moderate" Democrat; halfway between the union left and the progressive/woke left.
I noted that either reason could be possible.
Indeed, much like how Hillary Clinton humiliated herself by standing with her man while he explained getting his dick sucked in the Oval Office. What a big step for feminism, Me Too, etc.
The least Melenia could do is show up as her husband faces--dare I say it?--trumped-up charges.
The champion of Christian family values has a sham marriage.
Has anybody said he was a champion of Christian family values?
He just does not attack Christians. He does not sue nuns to force coverage of birth control. He does not try and force compelled speech that runs afoul of their beliefs.
“Has anybody said he was a champion of Christian family values?”
Seriously?
Yes. Seriously. Saying he's the least bad option is not saying he's a "Champion of Christian values".
Mike hates Christians, so anything that's even Christian-adjacent triggers his almonds.
Here's just one example of someone going way beyond "he's the least bad option":
https://churchleaders.com/news/454858-pastor-jimmy-morales-trump-rally-god.html
Pastor Jimmy Morales, who introduced former president Donald Trump at a campaign rally hosted at the Morales’ church Saturday, July 8, told attendees that the rally was the second most remarkable event that had ever happened at the church behind people giving their lives to God.
A visit by a current or former President IS a big event. And the church seemed to have started in 2020, so it's not like it's had a really lengthy history.
He said Trump had the back of pastors who need to help recover the country. Which he does as opposed to Biden.
The best case scenario, from a libertarian perspective, in terms of championing Christian values, would be to leave them the fuck alone and not actively shit on them, have the IRS go after them, and paint them as white supremacist bigots.
So ya, he was a perfect champion of Christian values, from a libertarian perspective.
Mike Pence, as one example, doesn't do any of those things to evangelical Christians. Why aren't they lining up behind him as their candidate of choice?
Because he has little to no chance of winning?
Because Pence managed to hit the self-destruct button on his campaign while being interviewed by Tucker Carlson?
That might just be a reason, dingbat.
Unlike the "Christian conservatives" for decades...Trump got Roe v Wade repealed. He delivered the goods to them.
Why would you have faith in the group that did not do a thing for decades except pay lip service?
Jesus was all about results!
Mouthing platitudes and doing zero to protect what you find sacred is not a positive.
Jesus was not big on people who proclaimed that they believed but continued sinning without remorse.
“Jesus was not big on people who proclaimed that they believed but continued sinning without remorse.”
LOL, you just described Donald J. Trump.
Biden pretends to be a devout catholic yet has a fucked up family, no comments or criticism from Mike
Trump has never pretended to be one, criticism from Mike.
At least he is consistent at being a leftist.
"has a fucked up family"
That's putting it quite mildly.
By that do you mean...
A son that is a drug addict
A son that is an absent father
A son that fucked his dead brother's widow
A son that sells US influence to foreign countries, using his name, to enrich his family and himself
A disowned granddaughter
A daughter that had to shower in secret so daddy wouldn't come in and join
He really is a disgusting human being. But no mean tweets and he sticks to the teleprompter script.
Sure, the Bidens sound like a fucked-up family. We weren't talking about the Bidens.
It’s hard to keep up with what “we’re” talking about when you have half the commentariat muted.
O, but we are now, oh obtuse and retarded one.
“…such instruction should be banned in any grade where it "is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students."
So it’s not actually OR effectively banned, it’s just that liberals and school boards are fucking morons who can’t tell when something is age appropriate. Anyone with half a brain could determine that an AP Psychology class would be the developmentally appropriate place to discuss these things.
Exactly. Although, I wouldn't call them morons. I'd call them calculating assholes. They're doing this as a show to get what they really want.
This is like when doctors were claiming laws didn't allow termination of pregnancies that risked the mothers life and the Hospital lawyers had to tell them to shut the fuck up they didn't know what they were talking about.
It is like these people are acting in bad faith.
California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein's daughter "has power of attorney over her mother's legal affairs," notes The New York Times. "Feinstein, 90 and in her sixth term in the Senate, has long been in frail health with increasing memory and cognition issues."
Well I certainly don't remember any memory issues.
Neither does she, nor droolin' Joe.
She for damn sure has no money issues - - - - - - - - - - -
It is good to see that most teenage boys and girls consider themselves moderate. Moderates who look at issues try to understand the issue and then deal on facts. It would be nice if more older Americans did that also.
You wouldn't know a moderate if it nailed your girlfriend while you watched and cried in the corner.
Ah, yes: “I have nothing of substance to add to the conversation, so I’ll sling poo!”, says damikesc to himself. “It will increase my standing with the Mean Girls!”
What conversation? Platitudes with no meaning are conversation to you?
I provided an equal amount of content.
Well, I hope you scored some points with the Mean Girls.
You seem unimpressed. Sarc is on mute. SPB is busy wanking to 7 year olds. I guess I did not. C'est la vie.
"Sarc is on mute. "
Fine with me. Fewer personal attacks to ignore.
Don't worry, some of us will never mute you.
What do people even laugh about here when they have sarc on mute?
People mocking Mike's idiocy.
Good point. I prefer to maximize my lolz though.
What did this add to the conversation?
Apparently jack and shit, and I think Jack just left town.
What I don't do is allow people like you to define moderation and the center.
And I don't allow you to do the same.
And we don’t allow you to, yet you seem to do so willingly.
So your name is ironic?
You misspelled moronic.
It is good. I hope it is a sign the worn-out duopoly that cannot even produce one decent Presidential candidate is on its way out once all us old farts stop propping it up.
Agree with this. Young people today are open to fellow young people, accepting different races and different sexual orientations. It would be nice if they accept political differences and reject tribal politics.
Translation: "Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left. As to the scope of this tolerance and intolerance: ... it would extend to the stage of action as well as of discussion and propaganda, of deed as well as of word."
Translation: "The people I don't like are all Marxists"
Translation: "I really don't have anything to say, but I'll piss and whine anyway."
At least he didn't start by saying there are no true Marxists this time.
Accepting superficial diversity is easy. Accepting actual diversity is the difficult part.
This may be true, but accepting superficial diversity is a start and there are plenty unwilling to do even that.
Lots of folks confuse "Acceptance" with "celebration".
They are vastly different things.
Someone doesn't sound like an ally...
Liz Truss’ cabinet is by far the most diverse in UK history, but because everyone is on the right (somehow, despite being women, people-of-color, etc.) the left discounted that diversity up and down the twitterspace.
"When Diversity Isn’t the Right Kind of Diversity" NYT
So, it would be nice if people just accept your way of thinking?
moderates are pussies. they are wishy washy fencesitters with no real principles or thoughts of their own.
which is why they are praised and we are told to emulate them.
If looking at and understanding issues and dealing on facts was what moderates do, we probably would've had fewer moderates calling for people to wear masks and get vaccinated or lose their jobs.
Based on your posting history moderates are leftists who lie about their stances and ignore the facts to push narratives.
"It is good to see that most teenage boys and girls consider themselves moderate. "
First of all, most of this is likely kids not wanting to adopt a label. Being open to anything (or not committed to anything) and not signing on to a label (whether 'liberal' who these kids are likely rolling their eyes at, or 'conservative' which has long been known as the fuddy duddies) is much cooler and more acceptable. Its definitely more socially acceptable among the young to be 'liberal' but now that these people have become the state, the power, 'the man' its not really very rebellious to side with them. Think Beta Orourke talking about jamming out to rage against the machine.
Second, this represents a trend among even millenials. There are tons of people who register and identify as 'independent' while pretty much always voting the same party ticket. I have multiple in my family. Some of them big Trump fans that feel betrayed by the GOP establishment and dislike RINOs, some of them Hillary feminists that would vote for govt control over anything and everything imagineable and think every R is literally hitler. They find it fashionable now to think of themselves as 'independent'.
When I was in school I didn't think about politics or ideology at all - never once. My only instinct was - leave me the fuck alone.
The last media organization on the planet that still criticizes regimes arresting the opposition leader.
Oh, look, a thirty minute video!
What would you prefer? It is what it is.
Either a link to a video with suggested timestamp or timestamp for the parts we should watch, or text sources. Basically, respect for fellow commenters’ time.
Imagine the waste of commenters' time for people asking for cites for 2020 Presidential election returns.
That would be a waste of commenters' time. Who did that?
You, twit.
You. You did that.
I don't think so. Can you link to the conversation where I supposedly asked for such a cite?
Cite?
You want cites for your own words? You must have a memory that makes a goldfish look like a sage, twit.
https://reason.com/2020/11/10/barr-authorizes-election-fraud-investigations-why-not/?comments=true#comment-8575786
I'll start there, White Knight Mike Laursen.
Everybody saw it and I called you on it in the damned threat where you questioned a comment that Trump had a significant increase in votes in his re-election.
Nope. A bunch of people who were either dishonest or had poor reading comprehension, including yourself apparently, said I was asking for one thing while missing the point of what I was actually asking for.
You were LITERALLY asking for a cite for election results for President in 2020.
Feel free to provide what we "miscomprehended"
I don’t even know where to look for the original conversation. I don’t have creepy bookmark files like others around here.
You keep bringing it up. Why don’t you link to the original conversation.
You don't watch video links anyway. Or has that changed now?
I'll sometimes watch one if it is short, or a specific timestamp is provided.
Someone should get Dee a bluetooth.
Lol. Respect my time; stop posting! Dude, your time is yours and yours alone to waste on whatever you choose.
Did that fucknugget actually have the gall to say that to someone else?
Mike, quit wasting everyone else's time and go nail one of your hands to a tree.
Time better spent than reading Rev Kirkland anime posts.
Oh, look, a thirty minute video!
The Meridian Moron can't actually refute anything in the video, so he whines about the length.
He doesn't even watch 2 minute videos.
I really hate those.
I hate 3 1/2 minute videos. They’re the worst.
Transcript is there if you know how to internet.
>>A.P. Psychology is not a required course for high school students, but it should be one that they have the option to take.
and if not the governor should never ever ever be president.
Can that sentence be diagrammed?
if it was for a chalkboard I wouldn't have started it with and
With a small 'a' no less.
Caw caw!
>>Majorities of both boys and girls identified as neither liberal nor conservative:
buena.
>>Sen. Dianne Feinstein's daughter "has power of attorney over her mother's legal affairs
sweet! would have added including votes on the US Senate floor
No, that’s Feinstein’s staff.
Cite?
It is actually the "Puppet Master".
I can get voting for a staff and not a Senator.
I voted for Strom Thurmond in his last campaign. Not because he was mentally competent, but because he had a damned good staff who got crap done.
The modern world moves at breakneck speed, and it creates stress for many people. We see everyday problems like depression and drug addiction. Every mass shooting Republicans tell us is a mental health issue. We need more people and institutions to address mental health. What is the Florida Republicans response let's not have AP Psychology.
I can SMELL the moderation.
Using your idiotic positioning --- what mass shooting would be stopped with some good information of gender identity?
Good HS Education of gender identity. The tragedy in Nashville could've been prevented if only we'd educated the professional transition facilitators a few years sooner!
what a surprise, M4e simping for the left.
Mental health is leftist? Where did that come from?
Something tells me the College Board isn’t a bunch of conservative Republican.
A.P. Psychology is not a required course for high school students, but it should be one that they have the option to take.
now do:
The Garden of Eden
Intelligent Design
Young Earth Creationism
Cryptozoology
Phrenology
The state controls over biology curriculum have effectively banned these elements of study. Students are NOT ALLOWED to study these things! The horror!
An introduction to gender studies SHOULD be in school curricula and in fact psych courses, but as a cautionary tale and case study in mental illness.
In all seriousness, now that Lemon v Kurtzman is history and the Lemon test has been thrown away, I think we will see some states or school districts attempt to bring ID into HS biology. McLean and Kitzmiller both relied on Lemon (and were not SC cases) and Edwards had a dissent by Scalia which provided a road map on how to get around any constitutionally implied prohibition on the teaching of ID. It's not as if Gorsuch et al are going to be persuaded by the well-written judgment in Kitzmiller.
Cryptozoology sounds fun at least.
You forgot "Flat Earth Theory".
>>>stuck to the buoys
attractive nuisance?
The FL College Board should make an explicit exception for the Kyle Rittenhouse School of MAP Studies.
P.S. - Dear Reason, I'm not sure which part of this comment caused it to be accepted, but not displayed, previously (as I received the "Duplicate Comment Detected" error), but GYST.
give your squirrels tramadol
I wonder how many teachers are MAPs
Reason promoting Hoaxes again.
Claim: Dead migrant stuck to Texas Buoy Barrier.
Linked article: "found dead near the buoy barrier"
Zero evidence the barrier caused the guys death.
No borders except whatever contains Russia, amiright?
When the Mexican Army, Navy and Air Force invades the United States militarily you’ll see what “borders” actually means. When the Russian Army, Navy and Air Force invaded Ukraine, that’s a “border” issue, not immigrants entering the United States to find work and maybe a better life. If you take issue with that, I pity your need for scapegoats to blame your miserable life on.
Reason's just towing the line.
I remember when they bought into the "whipping illegals" bullshit that Biden's admin both states did not happen AND STILL PUNISHED THE OFFICERS.
https://reason.com/2021/09/24/u-s-to-continue-cruel-treatment-of-haitian-refugees-but-not-on-horseback/
California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein's daughter "has power of attorney over her mother's legal affairs," notes The New York Times. "Feinstein, 90 and in her sixth term in the Senate, has long been in frail health with increasing memory and cognition issues."
Unlike her staffers who have power of attorney over her votes.
Oh look. Whiny Trump whines some more, demands that SCOTUS "intercedes" to bail him out.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/04/trump-calls-for-supreme-court-to-intercede-biden-after-third-indictment.html
Oh, here's a good one:
Yes, Trump, it's right there in Article 12 of the Constitution: "The courts shall not make it difficult for the Republican candidate to campaign for president!"
Hey look, Lefty Jeffy cheering on a political prosecution again!
I've said it a million times, Jeff is a Nazi.
Where is it written that campaigning should be easy. Trump has a private plane, other candidates will likely be traveling around the country in cars. Should all candidates for President be given planes to make it easier? The Libertarian and Green Party candidates will have to work with a fraction of the money that Trump and Biden will have. Everybody lives with limitations; Trump just is whinier than most others.
I know, right? Trump is the biggest whiniest crybaby in the history of presidenting. Not even Hillary is as big of a whiny bitch as he is being.
Yeah, he should stop complaining about being politically persecuted by a fascist regime.
They are so desperate to signal their virtue by displaying TDS, it's an interesting behavior to observe.
With that take, all candidates should get Air Force One as Biden gets to travel to all campaign events in Air Force One.
I'm actually all for that. When AF1 lands, there will be fewer candidates than before it took off.
What I am saying is that all campaigns deal with issues. Most don't whine about the issues.
Every incumbent President gets the use of AF1 and there is no doubt that helps. There was an LBJ quote about how valuable the image of AF1 was to the President, I am sorry I could not find that quote for the readers. It is not fair it is life.
Other candidates had the President's DoJ, which has shown itself to be quite willing to attack his personal foes, trying to imprison them?
Who?
Other campaigns had a Presidential candidate with no self control who keeps doing things that expose him to prosecution?
They weren't discussing the Bidens, bro.
Candidate Trump, back in 2016, had similar problems...President's DOJ doing the Democrat campaign's dirty work.
LBJ was full of quotes, and bigotry.
Gender and sexual orientation have been part of AP Psychology since the course launched.
Backfire! Students will needlessly have to wait until college to learn junk science.
No, most high school boys aren't conservative.
Post their political compasses to prove it!
Vox runs down various artificial intelligence regulations that Congress and the Biden administration are considering.
The key to taking down Skynet? Red tape.
You could also make Skynet read Vox. That'll do a number on it.
A police officer who tased a man to death during a traffic stop got off with a misdemeanor charge...
Who says law enforcement are never held accountable.
Feinstein, 90 and in her sixth term in the Senate, has long been in frail health with increasing memory and cognition issues.
If California doesn't want her anymore, Pennsylvania voters are up for it. And, of course, the White House.
The $10,000 cap on the state and local tax deduction"—a.k.a. the SALT cap—"is bedeviling Congress. Again...
Pay your fair share, Blue America!
Reason tries to sell the usual, groundless, leftist panic.
What a surprise!
"Groundless" would mean it's not happening, but the blog post above provides links that present evidence it is happening.
Like how FL is "banning" books?
You have nuthin’ so you change the subject.
College Board tried a cheap gotcha stunt and failed.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12376131/AP-Psychology-Florida-DeSantis-Manny-Diaz.html
No, the College Board called the Department of Education on their stupid interpretation of the law and Diaz caved and retracted their previous decision. So their “cheap gotcha stunt” succeeded. You should probably try actually reading the articles that you link to! Nice spin, though.
The simple workaround is for local colleges in Florida to offer courses in the subject to non-matriculated high school students. It's at least as good as advanced placement, and colleges have long offered courses to high schoolers who couldn't get such courses at their respective schools.
I think you missed the point. Obviously, clever people will always be able to find "workarounds" to avoid government stupidity. They should not have to find "workarounds" to avoid government stupidity. If the legislature and the governor intentionally banned teaching of sexual issues in public school that's idiotic. If the Department of Education "interpreted" the law to ban mention of sexuality in psychology curricula, that's also idiotic. If the College Board interpreted the Board of Education's decision as invalidating AP Psychology it was a political maneuver probably intended to call out the executive stupidity. Also, colleges should not have to waste resources bringing uneducated high school graduates up to college level after they start college. The Russian workaround to communism was organized crime providing seventy percent of the goods consumed by Russians just before the fall of communism. I don't recommend that for Florida, okay?
Oh, for fuck's sake.
No, Florida did not "effectively ban" AP Psychology courses, whatever the College Board's posturing.
Seriously, go Google up some of the study guides for preparing for the AP Psychology exam, see how much time they spend on sex and gender.
This one, chosen at random, mentions "sex" eighteen times and "gender" thirteen times:
https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/605fe570e5454a357d1e1811/60a0b5a267e8ec09efa30521_SS-AP-Psychology.pdf
Yes, in sixty pages of PDF, a raw text search for "sex" discovers the substring eighteen times.
To put it another way, in sixty pages of PDF, the actual coverage of "Gender and Development" (which is the part that contains 11 of your cited 13 mentions of gender) is less than two-thirds of one page.
It's ridiculous for Florida to be censoring the curriculum for high schoolers this way. It's also ridiculous for the College Board to be pretending that Florida's Bowdlerism has "effectively banned" the course.
I just demonstrated with a concrete example, using the exact methodology of proof you suggested, that gender and sex *is* part of an AP Psychology course.
No AP Psychology classes in high school? Now the teachers will have to go online and meet other adults instead of targeting their students.
Spoken like a true libertarian.
I made an account just to share that I pulled a high school report card to confirm that I took AP Psychology 2010-2011. This gender confusion was certainly not taught even 12 years ago, let alone 30. The gaslighting by the AP board is despicable, which I assume is now run by 20-something-year-olds.
What are they gaslighting about? The blog post above makes it clear the Florida state board ruled the class cannot be taught without removing some of the content required by the AP board.
In other words.
1. We don't like 'democracy' when its not in our favor.
2. Its not actually forbidden to teach the subject as its been taught - the course preparers just need to actually, you know, present an argument as to why these topics are age-appropriate in high school. Which, unless you're getting into crazy, bizzare, shit, should not be difficult to do.
The concept of teaching psychology without indoctrinating your students and actually teaching them how the mind works would be an amazing thing.
That's philosophy, not psychology. Psychology is a pyramid scheme run by colleges and "experts". It is fundamentally opposed to individualism, because no human consciousness can "examine" another, let alone through the crude medium of communicating through language. Then after "examination" telling a human consciousness that they are existentially suffering because their property doesn't align with their philosophy, and that the property is in their control but the philosophy is not, leads to affirming care. I for one am waiting to see the depravities we can get out of "affirming care". Right now they have it just for gender, but I'm thinking that ethnicity affirming care, or any other property characteristic (immutable characteristic) will be up for grabs in 10 years time. Unless this goes the way of eugenics, but it seems to me that this ball is justing starting to roll.
Although there may very well be a fraudulent element to psychology these days, it does not mean that all of psychological research is worthless. Much of the discipline is in the pre-scientific stage where phenomena are categorized (DSM-III et. seq.) but animal experiments such as Pavlov's dogs (q.v.) and positron emission imaging have contributed greatly to our understanding of the brain-personality connection and the duality of personality and behavior. Clearly hijacking by social warriors is unscientific and reprehensible and their political agenda should be repudiated by legitimate scientists from a scientific point of view. Science is a valuable activity and should not be derailed by social chaos.
“The Florida Department of Education has effectively banned AP Psychology in the state by instructing Florida superintendents that teaching foundational content on sexual orientation and gender identity is illegal under state law”
Setting aside for a moment the stupidity of dueling government agencies, this is a reprise of the previous argument about teaching religion in public schools. The solution at the time seemed to be that teaching religions in the context of social history or history of philosophy for comparative purposes was not a violation of the “establishment” clause. A similar approach could be taken – assuming that the College Board and the DoE are not simply butting heads for culture war or power struggle purposes – by allowing AP Psychology courses to present gender identity as one of a range of theories being studied by research psychologists. After all, whether or not you agree that a particular social engineering agenda should be pushed on children too young to understand it, juniors and seniors in high school with grades good enough to take AP courses should be presumed to be able to understand the topic – probably better than the legislators and the governor seem to. And – oh, by the way – if there was ever a public school senior who had not already faced troubling sexuality issues with or without accurate information before arriving at the twelfth grade I’ve never heard of them …